• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merry Normalization of Lies Day

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Last year, on January 6th, a bunch of people gathered in Washington DC to see the sitting US President discuss the need for Vice President Pence to step in and hand Trump the election. The people that were at the event, marched toward the Capitol Building and then proceeded to invade the building while Congress was supposed to be completing the election process. During in the invasion, Trump would tweet that Pence failed him, almost seemingly giving his rioters a green light for justifying some inconceivable attack.

The sitting President's case for all of this was about "fraud". And his supporters that day, a lot of middle to upper class white men, took it to heart that Trump did have the election stolen from him. But the reality was that nothing was stolen and President Biden won a close election (state to state) and clear Electoral Vote majority. That didn't matter, because lying became normalized. So much so, the vast majority of sitting GOP members in the US House of Representatives voted against certifying some electoral votes. And this is quite awful especially when you consider the most damning truth of the 2020 Election, President Trump took virtually none of his or his attorney's (Giuliani) widespread claims of fraud to court. They held press conferences, a literally fake Legislative hearing/investigation, informercials, but almost nothing went to court. All of the affidavits tossed about in interviews or fake testimony, almost all of it disregarded by the actual lawyers that, in a few rare cases, went to court.

And for the obvious reason, it was all a lie, and it is a lot easier to lie to the public than it is to demonstrate lies, especially when they are bald faced lies, in a court room. So you had the GOP seats in the House of Representatives, voting in majority to support lies that were never tested in court. Why? Because lying has became normalized in the Trump Administration. The lies from Trump became enough to simply use that to support the GOP's outrageous anti-democracy actions in the House, and in a more limited sense, in the Senate.

And the former President continues to lie, Republicans are growing increasingly in support of the people that invaded the US Capitol Building, chanting to death to their sitting VIce President... and forcing Congress to evacuate, and that it is actually the Democrats who are causing the problems here. The right-wing lying has become so normalized we are stepping beyond George Orwell novels.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,749
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
"You can't love your country only when you win." President Biden, 01/06/2022. Good point, Joe. Biden’s message today was the strongest condemnation of Trump he has ever made. Already the right wing are up in arms about this. DeSantis said Biden insulted those who went into the building that day. Well uh, OK. Let me add to that insult: FUCK ALL OF YOU LOW LIFE MOTHER FUCKERS!

I guess that’s why I’m not President. I’m not polite enough.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,899
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
"You can't love your country only when you win." President Biden, 01/06/2022. Good point, Joe. Biden’s message today was the strongest condemnation of Trump he has ever made. Already the right wing are up in arms about this. DeSantis said Biden insulted those who went into the building that day. Well uh, OK. Let me add to that insult: FUCK ALL OF YOU LOW LIFE MOTHER FUCKERS!

I guess that’s why I’m not President. I’m not polite enough.
Not polite enough?

I mean, whatever happened to the "fuck your feelings" crowd? Oh yeah, they are the ones up in arms about being insulted...
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
"You can't love your country only when you win." President Biden, 01/06/2022. Good point, Joe. Biden’s message today was the strongest condemnation of Trump he has ever made. Already the right wing are up in arms about this. DeSantis said Biden insulted those who went into the building that day. Well uh, OK. Let me add to that insult: FUCK ALL OF YOU LOW LIFE MOTHER FUCKERS!

I guess that’s why I’m not President. I’m not polite enough.
Jebus! DeSantis is a damn goon. And it is just again, the right-wing going radical. These people were speaking out against this in January 2021.

Gov. DeSantis January 2021 said:
It was totally unacceptable and those folks need to be held accountable.

...

And it doesn’t matter what banner you’re flying under, the violence is wrong, the rioting and the disorder is wrong. We’re not going to tolerate it in Florida.

Gov. DeSantis January 2022 said:
Jan. 6 allows them (the medi) to create narratives that are negative about people that supported Donald Trump.
The lies have become truth.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,428
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
DeSantis said Biden insulted those who went into the building that day. Well uh, OK. Let me add to that insult: FUCK ALL OF YOU LOW LIFE MOTHER FUCKERS!
He was referring to the emergency crews on 9/11 though.

“When they try to act like this is something akin to the Sept. 11th attacks, that is an insult to the people who were going into those buildings,” DeSantis said Thursday at a news conference in West Palm Beach. “And it’s an insult to people when you say it’s an ‘insurrection’ and then a year later, nobody has been charged with that.”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article257099297.html#storylink=cpy

Definitely a smarmy comment, but the people he's referring to aren't responsible for this current mess. And I definitely agree that those responsible for this insurrection should be charged with actual crimes, not just tutted at on the television.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
DeSantis should be alarmed if not embarrassed by the amount of Floridians willing to forcefully disrupt official proceedings. A lot more of them reside in our state than he thinks. So I hope he's ok with never toting any other line than theirs for as long as he is in office. I hope he's also ok with the possibility that a Trump-endorsed candidate may use inflammatory language encouraging our Floridian nutjobs to insurrection his candy ass.

Edit: If he runs against the said candidate.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
FIRJABoX0Aw8gFr
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.

So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?

Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?

Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.

So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?

Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?

Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
Well, a 2 minute google search demonstrates that this claim is false:


Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic

Where is this sentiment for Antifa? Not everyone protesting stole & damaged property or blocked roads. Just like not everyone that entered the capitol on Jan 6th attacked police officers, looted & damaged property. :rolleyes:
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Indeed, it was a tale of mob violences. The people at the closed door trying to barge their way into a restricted area, and one of them were shot were showing a bit less respect for the "velvet rope".

Indeed, we saw what is common with mob violence. The adrenaline wore off after a bit (and Congress had already been evacuated), and the middle/upper class white males started thinking twice. And in the end, resorting to childish trespassing, theft, and graffiti (mostly on captured by themselves on social media). But that came after the public destruction of federal property, attacks on police officers, attacks on press, and the evacuation of Congress.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?
Well, as I noted, Trump normalized lying, and it became the truth, therefore, we need to investigate all lies now because they are assumed to be the truth.

The OP is less about the mob, and more about the basis for why that mob existed in the first place, and that hasn't changed... except Trump doesn't have access to Social Media... a decision that might have saved lives by this point.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Indeed, it was a tale of mob violences. The people at the closed door trying to barge their way into a restricted area, and one of them were shot were showing a bit less respect for the "velvet rope".

Indeed, we saw what is common with mob violence. The adrenaline wore off after a bit (and Congress had already been evacuated), and the middle/upper class white males started thinking twice. And in the end, resorting to childish trespassing, theft, and graffiti (mostly on captured by themselves on social media). But that came after the public destruction of federal property, attacks on police officers, attacks on press, and the evacuation of Congress.

The oddest thing about people downplaying Jan 6th is they seem completely ignorant of the implications of what would have happened to America if those people would have succeeded in severely injuring a significant amount of members of Congress. The constitution requires that members resign so if enough were killed or incapacitated that would render an entire branch of the US Government inoperable.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,899
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Indeed, it was a tale of mob violences. The people at the closed door trying to barge their way into a restricted area, and one of them were shot were showing a bit less respect for the "velvet rope".

Indeed, we saw what is common with mob violence. The adrenaline wore off after a bit (and Congress had already been evacuated), and the middle/upper class white males started thinking twice. And in the end, resorting to childish trespassing, theft, and graffiti (mostly on captured by themselves on social media). But that came after the public destruction of federal property, attacks on police officers, attacks on press, and the evacuation of Congress.

The oddest thing about people downplaying Jan 6th is they seem completely ignorant of the implications of what would have happened to America if those people would have succeeded in severely injuring a significant amount of members of Congress. The constitution requires that members resign so if enough were killed or incapacitated that would render an entire branch of the US Government inoperable.
Which was entirely the point: render the transition of power inoperable. Then "well what are we going to do; Trump is still president, legally." Despite the fact that this would have been achieved illegally.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Nope, the constitution says on January 20th he and pence need to GTFO regardless of anything. The presidency would go to the speaker of the house until the counts are complete. A lawyer may argue that the counts wouldn't even be required for Biden to take the presidency. It's just that one Arm of the government would be down until election time for each dead or incapacitated member of the senate.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Indeed, it was a tale of mob violences. The people at the closed door trying to barge their way into a restricted area, and one of them were shot were showing a bit less respect for the "velvet rope".

Indeed, we saw what is common with mob violence. The adrenaline wore off after a bit (and Congress had already been evacuated), and the middle/upper class white males started thinking twice. And in the end, resorting to childish trespassing, theft, and graffiti (mostly on captured by themselves on social media). But that came after the public destruction of federal property, attacks on police officers, attacks on press, and the evacuation of Congress.

The oddest thing about people downplaying Jan 6th is they seem completely ignorant of the implications of what would have happened to America if those people would have succeeded in severely injuring a significant amount of members of Congress. The constitution requires that members resign so if enough were killed or incapacitated that would render an entire branch of the US Government inoperable.
Well, the larger issue here is that leaders of the mob (Trump and others) wanted the mob to disrupt and stop the certification of the votes by the electoral college. If they had succeeded, the vote would have gone to the states. And the state legislators (vastly dominated by republicans) would have most likely voted for Trump. This would have caused absolute chaos in the country.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Wow, I didn't know it could go back to the states. I just thought it would be tied up in the senate until they get it done. I thought it was mostly ceremonial than it was an official process. I Learn something new on this forum every day yo.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,134
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Nope, the constitution says on January 20th he and pence need to GTFO regardless of anything. The presidency would go to the speaker of the house until the counts are complete. A lawyer may argue that the counts wouldn't even be required for Biden to take the presidency. It's just that one Arm of the government would be down until election time for each dead or incapacitated member of the senate.
Which is a reason that Nancy Pelosi was specifically targeted.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wow, I didn't know it could go back to the states. I just thought it would be tied up in the senate until they get it done. I thought it was mostly ceremonial than it was an official process. I Learn something new on this forum every day yo.
Well, I'm no expert. But it appears to me that people have always assumed that the certification was supposed to be ceremonial. But Trump and his attorney's tried to find this loophole, and send it the election to the states. Then the election would have been decided by a simple majority of legislators in each state. IOW, Trump and his minions were desperately trying to find loopholes and tricks to get him back into the presidency. This really has to be addressed. Of course, we'd be insane to ever allow Trump to win the presidency again. He can't be trusted. But I also think that congress should dramatically tighten up the election process. However, it appears that dems are demoralized for some reason, and the republicans will sweep the house and the senate in 2022 elections. And these efforts to highlight and perhaps make recommendations to fix our system will be stopped. And 2024 might end up being the most important election in a very long time.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,458
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
If 2022 goes to Republican plan, 2024 will be a charade on the level of a Russian “election”.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,134
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Wow, I didn't know it could go back to the states. I just thought it would be tied up in the senate until they get it done. I thought it was mostly ceremonial than it was an official process. I Learn something new on this forum every day yo.
Well, I'm no expert. But it appears to me that people have always assumed that the certification was supposed to be ceremonial. But Trump and his attorney's tried to find this loophole, and send it the election to the states. Then the election would have been decided by a simple majority of legislators in each state. IOW, Trump and his minions were desperately trying to find loopholes and tricks to get him back into the presidency. This really has to be addressed. Of course, we'd be insane to ever allow Trump to win the presidency again. He can't be trusted. But I also think that congress should dramatically tighten up the election process. However, it appears that dems are demoralized for some reason, and the republicans will sweep the house and the senate in 2022 elections. And these efforts to highlight and perhaps make recommendations to fix our system will be stopped. And 2024 might end up being the most important election in a very long time.
Midterms are usually a loss for whatever party holds the presidency but I wouldn't hold my breath. There are a lot of former Republicans who have left the party because of Trump. If Trump retains control as the head of the party, either nominally or in reality, I think the party is in trouble. If it's not in trouble, then the nation is in very, very deep trouble.

Both parties are rather beset by issues with most senior members being...well into their senior years. Pelosi is expected to step down as speaker after mid-terms--and has reportedly agreed to do so. Pelosi is still quite sharp but she's not young any more. There are something like 6 Senators and 10 or 11 Congresspersons who are 80 or older, and a bunch more who are in their mid-70's who are older. Both parties have a lot of older members. This represents a lot of years of service, a lot of knowledge and also a lot of power.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Nope, the constitution says on January 20th he and pence need to GTFO regardless of anything. The presidency would go to the speaker of the house until the counts are complete. A lawyer may argue that the counts wouldn't even be required for Biden to take the presidency. It's just that one Arm of the government would be down until election time for each dead or incapacitated member of the senate.
Which is a reason that Nancy Pelosi was specifically targeted.

I thought they were after everyone Trump didn't like, which was every democrat & Pence. The media got attacked for just being there (Trump didn't like them either) and the police were attacked for being in the way (which gave their actual targets time to escape).
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,077
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I loved when the violent terrorists that respected the velvet ropes also respected this
1641579567822.png
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,134
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Nope, the constitution says on January 20th he and pence need to GTFO regardless of anything. The presidency would go to the speaker of the house until the counts are complete. A lawyer may argue that the counts wouldn't even be required for Biden to take the presidency. It's just that one Arm of the government would be down until election time for each dead or incapacitated member of the senate.
Which is a reason that Nancy Pelosi was specifically targeted.

I thought they were after everyone Trump didn't like, which was every democrat & Pence. The media got attacked for just being there (Trump didn't like them either) and the police were attacked for being in the way (which gave their actual targets time to escape).
At first blush, I had assumed they were after Pelosi because she was well known and well known as a target for Trump's ire but at least some of those insurrectionists were more thoughtful and deliberate in their actions. People were specifically targeted. Unmarked offices of lawmakers which were out of the way were broken into.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.

So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?

Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?

Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
Well, a 2 minute google search demonstrates that this claim is false:

No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.


Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

"google search"? What could not be debunked with a "google search"? The moon landing, climate change -- name your conspiracy. Evolution?

Obviously every claim by either side is condemned by the other as "false" and is debunked by something published somewhere which "demonstrates that this claim is false." Certainly this is so for all claims about Biden or Trump, Russia or China, about vaccinations and climate change, anything about the economy, about taxes, about racism, about any historical events, anything in science, anything where there's disagreement.

Using the debunked-by-google-search standard, nothing whatever should be investigated.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.

So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?

Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?

Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
Well, a 2 minute google search demonstrates that this claim is false:

No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.


Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

"google search"? What could not be debunked with a "google search"? The moon landing, climate change -- name your conspiracy. Evolution?

Obviously every claim by either side is condemned by the other as "false" and is debunked by something published somewhere which "demonstrates that this claim is false." Certainly this is so for all claims about Biden or Trump, Russia or China, about vaccinations and climate change, anything about the economy, about taxes, about racism, about any historical events, anything in science, anything where there's disagreement.

Using the debunked-by-google-search standard, nothing whatever should be investigated.

Well, with respect, you're just being lazy. When someone says "just google it"; that means that there are abundant sources for you to get information on the topic. You don't like NY Times? Fine. I did a quick 45 second check and found that the AP (linked below); Wall Street Journal (right wing); USA today (moderate); Washington Post (liens left) and etc all have stories on this issue. She's not in charge of the capital police. She's not in charge of their board. She didn't appoint any members of their board.


I'm not against a "red source". But produce it. I don't see the need to investigate it. Obviously, neither do the republicans. If they did see the need, I'm sure that they would have been careful to put a republican or two or more into the Congressional Special Committee in order to investigate this dastardly deed. They obviously did not.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Here's one you can read.

You seem to have quite a fallacious idea of what scepticism is.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,426
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist

Well, with respect, you're just being lazy. When someone says "just google it"; that means that there are abundant sources for you to get information on the topic. You don't like NY Times? Fine. I did a quick 45 second check and found that the AP (linked below); Wall Street Journal (right wing); USA today (moderate); Washington Post (liens left) and etc all have stories on this issue. She's not in charge of the capital police. She's not in charge of their board. She didn't appoint any members of their board.


I'm not against a "red source". But produce it. I don't see the need to investigate it. Obviously, neither do the republicans. If they did see the need, I'm sure that they would have been careful to put a republican or two or more into the Congressional Special Committee in order to investigate this dastardly deed. They obviously did not.
Spent a lifetime in the banking industry, did you?
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Well, with respect, you're just being lazy. When someone says "just google it"; that means that there are abundant sources for you to get information on the topic. You don't like NY Times? Fine. I did a quick 45 second check and found that the AP (linked below); Wall Street Journal (right wing); USA today (moderate); Washington Post (liens left) and etc all have stories on this issue. She's not in charge of the capital police. She's not in charge of their board. She didn't appoint any members of their board.


I'm not against a "red source". But produce it. I don't see the need to investigate it. Obviously, neither do the republicans. If they did see the need, I'm sure that they would have been careful to put a republican or two or more into the Congressional Special Committee in order to investigate this dastardly deed. They obviously did not.
Spent a lifetime in the banking industry, did you?
Ha ha. Yes, I've always liened that way!
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,031
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.

So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?

Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?

Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
Well, a 2 minute google search demonstrates that this claim is false:

No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.


Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

"google search"? What could not be debunked with a "google search"? The moon landing, climate change -- name your conspiracy. Evolution?

Obviously every claim by either side is condemned by the other as "false" and is debunked by something published somewhere which "demonstrates that this claim is false." Certainly this is so for all claims about Biden or Trump, Russia or China, about vaccinations and climate change, anything about the economy, about taxes, about racism, about any historical events, anything in science, anything where there's disagreement.

Using the debunked-by-google-search standard, nothing whatever should be investigated.

Well, with respect, you're just being lazy. When someone says "just google it"; that means that there are abundant sources for you to get information on the topic. You don't like NY Times? Fine. I did a quick 45 second check and found that the AP (linked below); Wall Street Journal (right wing); USA today (moderate); Washington Post (liens left) and etc all have stories on this issue.
No they don't, not stories about efforts made BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security, in anticipation of riots to happen later.


She's not in charge of the capital police. She's not in charge of their board. She didn't appoint any members of their board.
The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.

Without searching exhaustively it's clear that the issue was raised BEFORE Jan. 6, and the need for extra security was dismissed, according to many sources. Here's one:


The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

It says "no one at the Capitol" requested extra security. It also says there was resistance to "declaring an emergency ahead of the protests" or having "a National Guard presence" prior to the demonstration:

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.
It says extra security was rejected because of their concern with the "optics" of such emergency preparations.

The above is only one source among many, where mention is made of warnings BEFORE Jan. 6 and possible rioting which might happen, and why such warnings were rejected, and an apparent order handed down from on high that such steps would communicate some kind of undesirable symbolism ("optics").

The blame toward Pelosi is not that she was in charge of the National Guard or had official power over it or appointed its officials. The claim is that she made no request, and also that the issue had been raised and was rejected, e.g., by Paul Irving (who probably received that instruction from someone), noted above. We're talking about PRIOR to Jan. 6, when there were warnings and the issue of extra security was raised.



Why is a RED source automatically or "obviously false"? (and thus not to be investigated)

I'm not against a "red source". But produce it.

Sean Hannity (radio show) said Pelosi rejected an effort to request additional security (i.e., an effort made BEFORE Jan. 6 and so ignored by all your Google "abundant sources" above). And if Thom Hartmann accuses Republican leaders of something similar, that too ought to be investigated. A (Left or Right) radio propagandist is a legitimate source, in this case, i.e., a source for the accusation, not the facts, which the investigation then has to determine.


Why are you afraid of it being investigated?
If your only argument is that some Republican leader is also to blame, that's no reason to ignore Pelosi's dereliction. Investigate and blame anyone who apparently is at fault. Why are you afraid of the ones accused being put on the witness stand and required to explain their failure to do their duty? Wasn't it their duty to request extra security for such an event? Wasn't it known in advance that trouble was likely? Are you saying it's against the rules for the Leader of the House to ever request extra security, when the need for it is obvious?

Where are the "google" sources which say the House Leader is prohibited from ever communicating to the Capitol Police about upcoming protests which are likely to result in violence? or taking any steps to request security? If this is not taken up, then the best explanation is that the Democrats in Congress wanted the riots to happen --- you can't say they didn't anticipate them.


I don't see the need to investigate it.
translation: You're afraid of what would be learned from such an investigation, because it would expose guilt by BLUE demagogues, not only RED. Of course you see no need to ever investigate any charge which would expose blame by a Blue crusader. We all understand your Blue bias. But there is evidence that the need for extra security was brought up, BEFORE Jan. 6, and for some reason it was dismissed, likely under influence from someone high in the power structure.


Obviously, neither do the republicans.
Maybe you're right that Mitch McConnell was also derelict and wants to stay away from it. What is needed is a real investigation of all those who should have taken steps to get added security BEFORE Jan. 6. It looks like certain effort to do that was dismissed, by someone. Who? E.g., who told Paul Irving (see above) to reject the National Guard presence or that the "optics" of it would be bad?


If they did see the need, I'm sure that they would have been careful to put a republican or two or more into the Congressional Special Committee in order to investigate this dastardly deed. They obviously did not.
You know their choices for that Committee were rejected by Pelosi -- You're not being serious. Unless you mean that both Republican leaders and also Pelosi and Schumer are trying to hide their blame for what happened, by rebuffing efforts BEFORE Jan. 6 to have extra security provided.

No one is answering why Pelosi didn't do anything BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security to prevent what happened, and whether she might have influenced those who dismissed the requests for it. And the best explanation, if there's no investigation, is that Pelosi and Schumer wanted the riots to happen, so they could capitalize on it later, to score political points. The truth is that Blue crusaders (and maybe some Red crusaders too) wanted the riots to happen, so fanatics on both sides could capitalize on it, as they are doing. And so actually no one -- Republican or Democrat leaders -- wanted the riots to be prevented, despite their false pretense of being shocked by the tragic event.

This is the best explanation why there was so little security preparation for the riots before they broke out on Jan. 6. By then it was far too late to prevent the damage. A true and full investigation would reveal that Pelosi and other Democrat leaders anticipated the rioting with glee and discouraged any advance preparation for it, because they knew they could exploit it later for political gain.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,742
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Lumpenproletariat, your entire post reads like an abusive partner telling their spouse, "look what you made me do". Pelosi showing bad judgement in giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt pales in comparison to what members of the Trump administration actually fucking did.

The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.
I have the controversial opinion that when a coup occurs, you hold the people who actually did shit accountable first. Then you dive into the hindsight arguments.

No one is answering why Pelosi didn't do anything BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security to prevent what happened, and whether she might have influenced those who dismissed the requests for it.
Like I said - "Look at what you made me do".
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.

So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?

Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?

Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
Well, a 2 minute google search demonstrates that this claim is false:

No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.


Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

"google search"? What could not be debunked with a "google search"? The moon landing, climate change -- name your conspiracy. Evolution?

Obviously every claim by either side is condemned by the other as "false" and is debunked by something published somewhere which "demonstrates that this claim is false." Certainly this is so for all claims about Biden or Trump, Russia or China, about vaccinations and climate change, anything about the economy, about taxes, about racism, about any historical events, anything in science, anything where there's disagreement.

Using the debunked-by-google-search standard, nothing whatever should be investigated.

Well, with respect, you're just being lazy. When someone says "just google it"; that means that there are abundant sources for you to get information on the topic. You don't like NY Times? Fine. I did a quick 45 second check and found that the AP (linked below); Wall Street Journal (right wing); USA today (moderate); Washington Post (liens left) and etc all have stories on this issue.
No they don't, not stories about efforts made BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security, in anticipation of riots to happen later.


She's not in charge of the capital police. She's not in charge of their board. She didn't appoint any members of their board.
The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.

Without searching exhaustively it's clear that the issue was raised BEFORE Jan. 6, and the need for extra security was dismissed, according to many sources. Here's one:


The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

It says "no one at the Capitol" requested extra security. It also says there was resistance to "declaring an emergency ahead of the protests" or having "a National Guard presence" prior to the demonstration:

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.
It says extra security was rejected because of their concern with the "optics" of such emergency preparations.

The above is only one source among many, where mention is made of warnings BEFORE Jan. 6 and possible rioting which might happen, and why such warnings were rejected, and an apparent order handed down from on high that such steps would communicate some kind of undesirable symbolism ("optics").

The blame toward Pelosi is not that she was in charge of the National Guard or had official power over it or appointed its officials. The claim is that she made no request, and also that the issue had been raised and was rejected, e.g., by Paul Irving (who probably received that instruction from someone), noted above. We're talking about PRIOR to Jan. 6, when there were warnings and the issue of extra security was raised.



Why is a RED source automatically or "obviously false"? (and thus not to be investigated)

I'm not against a "red source". But produce it.

Sean Hannity (radio show) said Pelosi rejected an effort to request additional security (i.e., an effort made BEFORE Jan. 6 and so ignored by all your Google "abundant sources" above). And if Thom Hartmann accuses Republican leaders of something similar, that too ought to be investigated. A (Left or Right) radio propagandist is a legitimate source, in this case, i.e., a source for the accusation, not the facts, which the investigation then has to determine.


Why are you afraid of it being investigated?
If your only argument is that some Republican leader is also to blame, that's no reason to ignore Pelosi's dereliction. Investigate and blame anyone who apparently is at fault. Why are you afraid of the ones accused being put on the witness stand and required to explain their failure to do their duty? Wasn't it their duty to request extra security for such an event? Wasn't it known in advance that trouble was likely? Are you saying it's against the rules for the Leader of the House to ever request extra security, when the need for it is obvious?

Where are the "google" sources which say the House Leader is prohibited from ever communicating to the Capitol Police about upcoming protests which are likely to result in violence? or taking any steps to request security? If this is not taken up, then the best explanation is that the Democrats in Congress wanted the riots to happen --- you can't say they didn't anticipate them.


I don't see the need to investigate it.
translation: You're afraid of what would be learned from such an investigation, because it would expose guilt by BLUE demagogues, not only RED. Of course you see no need to ever investigate any charge which would expose blame by a Blue crusader. We all understand your Blue bias. But there is evidence that the need for extra security was brought up, BEFORE Jan. 6, and for some reason it was dismissed, likely under influence from someone high in the power structure.


Obviously, neither do the republicans.
Maybe you're right that Mitch McConnell was also derelict and wants to stay away from it. What is needed is a real investigation of all those who should have taken steps to get added security BEFORE Jan. 6. It looks like certain effort to do that was dismissed, by someone. Who? E.g., who told Paul Irving (see above) to reject the National Guard presence or that the "optics" of it would be bad?


If they did see the need, I'm sure that they would have been careful to put a republican or two or more into the Congressional Special Committee in order to investigate this dastardly deed. They obviously did not.
You know their choices for that Committee were rejected by Pelosi -- You're not being serious. Unless you mean that both Republican leaders and also Pelosi and Schumer are trying to hide their blame for what happened, by rebuffing efforts BEFORE Jan. 6 to have extra security provided.

No one is answering why Pelosi didn't do anything BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security to prevent what happened, and whether she might have influenced those who dismissed the requests for it. And the best explanation, if there's no investigation, is that Pelosi and Schumer wanted the riots to happen, so they could capitalize on it later, to score political points. The truth is that Blue crusaders (and maybe some Red crusaders too) wanted the riots to happen, so fanatics on both sides could capitalize on it, as they are doing. And so actually no one -- Republican or Democrat leaders -- wanted the riots to be prevented, despite their false pretense of being shocked by the tragic event.

This is the best explanation why there was so little security preparation for the riots before they broke out on Jan. 6. By then it was far too late to prevent the damage. A true and full investigation would reveal that Pelosi and other Democrat leaders anticipated the rioting with glee and discouraged any advance preparation for it, because they knew they could exploit it later for political gain.
Well, Hannity has zero credibility regarding Trump. He was a close confident of Traitor Trump offering him personal advice for months. Secondly, if the above had any legs, why wouldn't the republicans have pushed it? They know they that it doesn't. Hence, they ran from the committee. Finally, I really don't think that anyone anticipated that the republicans would try to prevent the certification of the election. It's quite stunning to see this even all these months later. I agree with you that there wasn't enough security at the capital. But it's such a minor issue. You aren't seeing the trees through the forest. The real crime is trying to stop the certification of the election.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.
That not what you said originally. You said "Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection". All responses were based upon that erroneous statement. Moving goalposts. Not cool.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.

They have a meterwall, not a paywall. It can be circumvented.
Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

In practice, a wild claim from a red source is almost certainly garbage and not worth investigating. Real stuff makes it to the mainstream media.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I love it! Lumpen's first post in the Normalization of Lies thread is a lie (no, I"m not accusing Lumpen of lying).

I wonder why he's fixated on nancy Pelosi's actions and not the action of the Trump administration that blocked the National Guard and took over the authorization for their use.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Yeargh! Why this Pelosi refuse National Guard help before the riot.

Umm... why did President Trump incite a riot in the first place?

YEARGH! Yee be changing the subject.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
he's either totally delusional or a total sociopath.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
your entire post reads like an abusive partner telling their spouse, "look what you made me do". Pelosi showing bad judgement in giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt pales in comparison to what members of the Trump administration actually fucking did.
You're right. So then, what should happen, instead of what actually has been happening?

Trump and many of his cohorts should have been subpoenaed to testify, and refusing to show up they should have been arrested and convicted and imprisoned for this crime.

And Pelosi or others who failed to do their duty, a much lesser offense, should simply have been censured by the Congress and forced to resign in disgrace.

So all those blameworthy should be given their appropriate punishment.

Why do you want to absolve the Blues of any blame and insist that only Reds/Trumpists can ever be investigated for wrongdoing?


I have the controversial opinion that when a coup occurs, you hold the people who actually did shit accountable first.

Why doesn't that include those who chose not to provide extra security to prevent violence, when this was an obvious choice for them to make? Why are they not also accountable for their shit as much as those who caused the mob to show up?


Then you dive into the hindsight arguments.

ALL of this is "hindsight," including the investigation into who planned for the mob to be there or who "actually did shit" -- that too is all "hindsight."

ALL the wrongdoing which ended up causing the "coup" to become lawless should be investigated, all of which is "hindsight" regardless whether it's Reds/Trumpsters or some Democrats who are to blame for negligence. You can't separate supposed "hindsight arguments" as having less priority or to be excluded until later. Congress can take action to punish those who are responsible for the lack of security. These ones likely had a sinister motive of wanting the coup to become violent so it could be used for political gain.

You could claim we have no way to determine their motive. But at least they should have to resign, for their irresponsibility, as many cases are resolved by those guilty not being convicted but having to resign in disgrace.

It was known in advance, by all those in high position, that there would be riots unless extra security measures were taken. This fact was known, from all the evidence so far.


Like I said - "Look at what you made me do".

This cliché is meaningless. The rioters are not saying anything like this. The ones responsible for the chaos are all those who told them to commit violence or who neglected proper preparation for adequate security.

If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,904
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
your entire post reads like an abusive partner telling their spouse, "look what you made me do". Pelosi showing bad judgement in giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt pales in comparison to what members of the Trump administration actually fucking did.
You're right. So then, what should happen, instead of what actually has been happening?

Trump and many of his cohorts should have been subpoenaed to testify, and refusing to show up they should have been arrested and convicted and imprisoned for this crime.

And Pelosi or others who failed to do their duty, a much lesser offense, should simply have been censured by the Congress and forced to resign in disgrace.

So all those blameworthy should be given their appropriate punishment.

Why do you want to absolve the Blues of any blame and insist that only Reds/Trumpists can ever be investigated for wrongdoing?


I have the controversial opinion that when a coup occurs, you hold the people who actually did shit accountable first.

Why doesn't that include those who chose not to provide extra security to prevent violence, when this was an obvious choice for them to make? Why are they not also accountable for their shit as much as those who caused the mob to show up?


Then you dive into the hindsight arguments.

ALL of this is "hindsight," including the investigation into who planned for the mob to be there or who "actually did shit" -- that too is all "hindsight."

ALL the wrongdoing which ended up causing the "coup" to become lawless should be investigated, all of which is "hindsight" regardless whether it's Reds/Trumpsters or some Democrats who are to blame for negligence. You can't separate supposed "hindsight arguments" as having less priority or to be excluded until later. Congress can take action to punish those who are responsible for the lack of security. These ones likely had a sinister motive of wanting the coup to become violent so it could be used for political gain.

You could claim we have no way to determine their motive. But at least they should have to resign, for their irresponsibility, as many cases are resolved by those guilty not being convicted but having to resign in disgrace.

It was known in advance, by all those in high position, that there would be riots unless extra security measures were taken. This fact was known, from all the evidence so far.


Like I said - "Look at what you made me do".

This cliché is meaningless. The rioters are not saying anything like this. The ones responsible for the chaos are all those who told them to commit violence or who neglected proper preparation for adequate security.

If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.
Let's try to make this simple. Let's assume that Pelosi is responsible for capital security (there is no proof for this). Assuming this for fun: who would you hold responsible for a bank being robbed: the local police chief in charge of security; or the thieves?
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian



Why is a RED source automatically or "obviously false"? (and thus not to be investigated)

I'm not against a "red source". But produce it.
Sean Hannity (radio show) said Pelosi rejected an effort to request additional security (i.e., an effort made BEFORE Jan. 6 and so ignored by all your Google "abundant sources" above). And if Thom Hartmann accuses Republican leaders of something similar, that too ought to be investigated. A (Left or Right) radio propagandist is a legitimate source, in this case, i.e., a source for the accusation, not the facts, which the investigation then has to determine.

Well, Hannity has zero credibility regarding Trump. He was a close confident of Traitor Trump offering him personal advice for months.
All radio propagandists are legitimate sources for accusations against those in power, on either side.

Hannity was not wrong when he said Delaware's voting restrictions are worse than Georgia's. No one could refute that. Instead they just make excuses why the standards for Georgia need to be different than for Delaware.

The Red sources all said Jussie Smollet was a liar, right from the start, while all the Blue sources insisted that he was telling the truth. So there's one case where the Reds were right and Blues had "zero" credibility.

So we need to set aside the prejudice, e.g. the Hannity-Hate and all other bias, and just accept any source which speaks for a large constituency, for their accusations, against Reds or Blues, and investigate all of them, without imposing either the Red or Blue narrative as the standard for truth.

Secondly, if the above had any legs, why wouldn't the republicans have pushed it?
Some are pushing it, but others not, probably because it means they too, some of them, could also be accused of the same thing. E.g., maybe McConnell is similarly guilty of ignoring the need for increased security for Jan. 6 when the riots would likely occur.

They know that it doesn't.
No, they know it does, but some are afraid of where such investigation would lead.

Hence, they ran from the committee.
After Pelosi expelled the ones they selected, they saw it was stacked against them, as a partisan exhibition rather than an impartial investigation into the facts of what caused the riots to happen.

I agree with you that there wasn't enough security at the capitol. But it's such a minor issue.
No, it's a major issue, because this failure of security is the main cause of the riots. It was predicted in advance that there would be violence and that the police would not be able to handle it. This has been proved in all the evidence so far.

You aren't seeing the trees through the forest.
What's important is whatever should have happened to prevent the riot from happening, or whatever should not have happened which caused it.

The real crime is trying to stop the certification of the election.
No, the violence and trespass and destruction of property is the real crime. If all they had done was peacefully protested the certification, and even made speeches why the certification should stop, there would have been no crime.
 
Top Bottom