Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 127 discussions (1121 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
    Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16025611_f1024.jpg

    The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? 

    The committee will work hard to sway opinion. The first hearing will open in prime time with wide network news coverage. Over the course of this month, the panel will present videos of the events that surrounded  Jan. 6 that the public has never seen as of yet.  While surely publicizing hours of testimony from people tied to Donald Trump, and their accusation that he made an effort to overturn the election.   As the hearings unfold, members are expected to show that the Trump forces knew they had lost in 2020 yet pushed the baseless claim that the election was stolen anyway.


    So, where at this point do Americans stand on Trump's guilt?   In an NBC poll  released today (June 6, 2022,  the percentage of Americans who say Trump was responsible for Jan. 6 drops:

    "About 17 percent of respondents said the former president is solely responsible for the rioting, while 28 percent say he is mainly responsible, according to the survey.

    In January 2021, 52 percent of respondents said Trump was responsible, with 28 percent saying he was solely responsible and 24 percent saying he was mainly responsible.

    By comparison, the percentage of Americans in the new poll who say Trump was “not really” responsible for Jan. 6 grew to 35 percent, up from 29 percent in January 2021. About 20 percent of Americans now say he is somewhat responsible, up from 18 percent 18 months ago.

    The findings come as the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot prepares for its first public hearing Thursday night. Lawmakers are expected to present their findings to the public after collecting thousands of documents and conducting more than 1,000 interviews."
    https://thehill.com/news/3512919-percen … rops-poll/

    Are you planning on watching the hearings?

    Do you feel watching the hearings might change your opinion one way or the other?

    Do you feel the riot was planned by Trump and his accosiates?

    Hopefully, we can keep on the subject. We should have plenty of hearing fodder to discuss.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, and I shall be waiting with baited breath for justice to be dispensed...

    2. IslandBites profile image89
      IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Are you planning on watching the hearings? - Yes.

      Do you feel watching the hearings might change your opinion one way or the other? - We'll see.

      Do you feel the riot was planned by Trump and his accosiates? - Only the riot? Planned? Don't know.

    3. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I plan to watch the hearings.

      It's more than likely that watching will only solidify my opinion.

      Yes, I certainly feel the riot was planned and I based that one two very specific pieces of evidence:
      1)  Would any of those people even have been there had Trump not summoned them to 'stop the (fabricated) steal?'  The answer is no.
      2.)  The committee meeting with Trump and his aides who set up the rally specifically stated that their permit for the rally was solely at the ellipse.  The Capitol police were not prepared for the crowd to be at the Capitol since they were not permitted to be there and were singularly sent there by Trump during his speech, without warning.
      3.)  His statements that if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country and that the election was stolen (which was a lie), combined with sending an angry crowd that he lied to to the Capitol, combined with his lack of action and celebrating the violence for hours, will confirm his role in the violence by his followers.

      And it does not shock me that Wilderness will bury his head in the sand to testimony under oath by witnesses to the events of the day.  Anything that attacks his version of the truth does not exist to him.

    4. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe, maybe not. It depends if I want to be depressed or not, if I want my beliefs to be challenged thus my reality, and what time of day it is as I nap the afternoons away most of the time, though I don't know the airing times. Of course, the day following on Facebook I can catch the banter of both sides and here too to give inspiration if something peeks my curiosity.

      However, for me, a well respected mentor/employer/Republican/Conservative had a way at looking at things. He would say it only takes one 'Aww S*** to wipe out all the Atta' Boys'. To me Jan 6 was one big Aww S***!

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Atta boys and Ah shits" That's a gem that covers it well. I gotta remember that one.

        GA

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          He first shared that with me when I crashed a NC lathe by ommitting a zero in one programmed dimension. It was as loud as a plane crash! At least I got a clean slate and not fired. Yet, I made sure there were no aww s***'s after that.

    5. abwilliams profile image66
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I may tune in, not sure, but I am curious as to how Democrats will respond to what Patel is stating here:

      https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-tru … tol-denied

    6. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      And so former president Trump wanted armed men in the march to the Capitol and he encouraged them by saying "fight like hell".

      1. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

        During his speech? I watched the speech, he never told armed men to go to the Capitol building and fight like hell. ???
        Unless you mean when he attempted to have the National Guard go? They would most definitely be armed and they do fight like hell, when necessary. But, that was shot down (no pun intended) by Pelosi.??? So not sure what you are talking about.

        1. peterstreep profile image79
          peterstreepposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Hutchinson testified under oath that Trump was deeply angered by the fact that some of his supporters who had gathered on the National Mall were not entering the secure perimeter for the Save America rally at the Ellipse where he was due to make remarks.

          The supporters did not want to enter the secure perimeter, Hutchinson testified, because many were armed with knives, blades, pepper spray and, as it later turned out, guns, and did not want to surrender their weapons to the Secret Service to attend the rally.

          “I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me,” Trump exclaimed in an extraordinary outburst of fury, according to Hutchinson. “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away.”

      2. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

        And is this true? It would seem she "MAY" have lied about what went on in the president's limo.  It would seem you choose to believe this woman without any verification that she is being truthful. Curious.

        Why would you feel she was being truthful in any of her second-hand accounts?  Trump never told the crowd to go to the Capitol and fight like hell. He said to go peacefully.  You need to check the context of his "fight like hell" statement.  You have taken three words out of a paragraph. The transcript is available online, and one only needs to read the paragraph where Trump said "Fight like hell".

        1. IslandBites profile image89
          IslandBitesposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          Well, she testified under oath. If Ornato testifies under oath that he did not, then it is a matter of he said/she said. Are you already to believe the side that says "did not", right? And use the one account to discount all the rest of her (incredibly damning) testimony, which no one has jumped to prove false.

          I agree the Jan 6 Comitee would benefit in clarify the issue because MAGA world will use it to keep their eyes, ears and brain shut off.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

            I am hopeful all there means testament will add more information, they were interviewed. I would think all three first-hand testimony would outweigh a second-hand testimony. I also think the valid should be interviewed in regard to the plate tossing incident. Also, the information about Trump requesting that they take down the magnetic scanners be removed needs to be proven.

            At this point, all she said needs to be looked at and cooperated. There is too much unknown.

            I certainly had my eyes open, but at this point, I think the committee needs to step in and show these three men's under-oath testimony

            If they just ignore and move on, I certainly won't waste any more time even watching the hearings. I will consider them tainted.

            I am hopeful the committee come out today and share the facts on the three men's allegations that Hutchinson's testimony matched that of the three men she was quoting.

            1. IslandBites profile image89
              IslandBitesposted 23 months agoin reply to this

              I thought you already know she's lying? All of them, republicans, former Trumpers, liars, right?

              "Thank God these secret service men have stepped up, and hopefully, more will step up, to tell the truth."

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 23 months agoin reply to this

                All I am looking for today is ---   I am hopeful the committee come out today and share the facts on the three men's allegations that Hutchinson's testimony matched that of the three men she was quoting.

                If they don't clarify this problem, I say she lied. If she lied, she committed perjury. The Committee either needs to prove she was telling the truth or Yes, I believe she lied, and it was up to this committee to present the truth. Her story should have been checked out before she went live on network TV.

        2. peterstreep profile image79
          peterstreepposted 23 months agoin reply to this

          She was saying this under oath Sharlee. You do not lie under oath. If detected that you lie under oath it will cost you everything as Bill Clinton can tell you! and she does not have the protection of high political people when she tries to lie. And if she tells the truth as she does, half the country will call her names and try to ruin her. It's easier to say nothing but she does not because she is asked under oath to tell her story.

          You are right to correct me that Trump did not say during his speech "fight like hell". I stand corrected.
          Nevertheless wanting to have armed people in de walk to the Capitol combined with his speech is suspiciously close to encouraging a violent revolt.

  2. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    No, I will not be watching.  I have better things to do than watch political posturing and tear jerking movies designed to sway feelings and thereby opinions. 

    Unlike Credence, I do not expect, or hope, for "justice to be dispensed", only politically motivated declarations of "guilt" (never innocence, at least to those connected to Trump).  That committee is not interested in "justice", only in hanging Trump or anyone that supports him in any way.  It is no different that the two faux "impeachment" efforts in that regard.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree this is a political move, and actually a bit of a gamble on the part of the Democrats. I mean this kind of hearing could be looked at as a witchhunt, by viewers on both sides. These days people are very jaded and overly disgusted in general. If it is all about showboating, and politicking many will see it as a waste of time and money. I am going to try to keep an open mind, which is very hard for me to do at this point.

      I am very much interested to be able to watch the hearing and save my thoughts to share as the hearings progress.

      Most likely you hit the nail on the head.

  3. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    https://media.makeameme.org/created/willful-ignorance-is-7344f4c8bd.jpg

  4. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    I can't imagine wasting time watching a biased committee made up of political hacks and some of the most incompetent politicians to ever be elected.

    Adam Schiff? A proven pathological liar.  His reputation for stating opinions as facts is known throughout DC and beyond.  He is from California, which makes sense.

    He's also one of the better Democrats on the committee

    So, to provide the illusion of an unbiased committee, pelosi hand-picked two RINOS.

    Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?

    Liz Cheny is down so far in the polls in Wyoming to her President Donald Trump-backed candidate, she probably couldn't get a job cleaning up after a President Donald Trump rally. 

    Adam Kinzinger is not running for office.  He did some pre-polling before his decision to not run for office, he wasn't even close to other Republicans.

    The January 6th committee is nothing but a Democrat political show tune.  Its goal is to help negate the red wave coming in November.  It's the Democrat, political hack version of a “Hail Mary” pass.

    The political bias and make-up of the committee illustrates it has no value, meaning, or substance.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      When Pelosi chose to exclude Jim Jordan, who ended up being a material witness to the same committee he was selected for, that was clearly the right choice.  Why kind of vetting did McCarthy do that he would select someone complicit in the day's events?  McCarthy then pulled the three members she was more than willing to accept.

      Cheney and Kinzinger are conservatives.  Using their popularity with the Trump base as as benchmark for their honesty tells us all we need to know considering the lies that base constantly believes.

      And anything that criticizes the wrong doings of the most corrupt man in US political history is always a 'witchhunt' or a 'political show' to those that many feel are in a cult.  It's the same thing you see, defend the cult leader at all costs and everyone else has to be wrong. 

      It'd be sad if it wasn't so dangerous to the country based on the number of domestic terror incidents that have been carried out in his name.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Cheney and Kinzinger are hated and despised by the Republican party.  They are RINOS...period.  They were only put on the committee because they are RINOS.  They have NO political future in the Republican party. They only represent themselves and nobody else. 

        Again, their selection only proves the committee is a political show.

        "the most corrupt man in US political history" I think you may be referring to biden. Let us start with the behavior of Hunter biden, his laptop and then work for the last 30 years.  Everybody pails in comparison to biden when it comes to corruption. 

        If left could be honest about biden's corruption for decades, they may not be instantly dismissed as hypocrites.

        There is a good chance President Donald Trump could win in 2024.  There are even Democrats predicting it.  He was a 1,000 times better president than biden.  Facts are facts.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yep, facts are facts, except when they are opinions.

          GA

        2. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, Cheney and Kinzinger are the Republicans and the Trump base are now the RINO's.  They have no future in the party of Trump, and they are just fine with that.  People like Paul Ryan, Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger are among other people who refuse to buy Trump's lies and stood for the truth.

          You really believe Biden is on par with a guy who inspired a domestic terror attack against his own country?  That's some serious false equivalency there.

          Facts are facts, which many in Trump's cult ignore to spew opinions.  Trump failed to uphold his oath to protect the constitution, trying to work around it with failed legal theories.  Sorry, but when a President violates his oath of office, no way anyone can ever say he was a better president than anyone else.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "You really believe Biden is on par with a guy who inspired a domestic terror attack against his own country? "

            Keep those attempts at gaslighting going, it's all the democrats have left.  The truth abandoned them a long time ago.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              And you keep living in denial that Trump organized the rally, sent his followers to the Capitol, all based on a lie.

              Did you ever leave the la-la land that Trump won behind?  You had trouble accepting that truth for a very long time.

  5. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    I am not going to make it a point to watch the 6th Jan BS put on by Democrat criminals who hate President Trumps guts. Every minate of it will be a clown show presented by criminal clown Democrats.

    1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
      TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It'll be a kangaroo court.

  6. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    Even the NYT admits this is more about helping the democrats with the midterms than about anything of substance.

    "Democrats Straight Up Admit The J6 Hearings Are Political Theater"

    “With their control of Congress hanging in the balance, Democrats plan to use made-for-television moments and a carefully choreographed rollout of revelations over the course of six hearings…to persuade voters that the coming midterm elections are a chance to hold Republicans accountable for it,” The New Times reported.

    Several Democrat operatives and politicians were quoted in the story admitting that the hearings might provide the political clout their party needed for the midterm elections. Battling rampant inflation, a war in Eastern Europe and rising prices for gas and other goods, Democrats seem poised to use the January 6 hearings to make a political point about Republicans."

    https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/07/demo … -hearings/

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I like how the Daily Caller changed the theme of accountability for crimes to political theater.  Illustrating that the figurehead for the Republican Party, and many of their elected reps that went along with a plot to undermine a free and fair election, might be something voters want to be aware of heading into the next election.

      Those deep into Trump's cult are already set on their view and will ignore the findings.  Heck, even Fox News is afraid to show the hearings.  Talk about a bunch of snowflakes.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I also think the hearing presentations will be political theater, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I see the purpose of the hearings as to persuade the nation that their findings are valid. Providing information in the most effective manner shouldn't be a criticism.

        However, if the spin of that political theater distorts or misrepresents the hearing's information I am hopeful that the public will see it as Kabuki theater and say so. That is the direction of my prediction. The Committee is going to screw it up with a Hollywood version of 'poetic license' —turning facts, and interpreted suppositions, into magnified truths.

        I will even whisper an aside: I bet even the most critical, the ones that wouldn't 'waste' their time watching, will be sneaking more than a peek. ;-)

        GA

        1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
          TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          If I watch it, I will watch it on one of the C-Span channels inasmuch as those channels have the fewest interruptions as compared with other national news channels.  When there are frequent interruptions, one misses out on a lot of valuable information.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I will also watch on Cspan, my favorite outlet, one gets it all without missing a word. And context is so important these days.

        2. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Not one Progressive will change their view. Not ever. They want blood. The Democrats will give the haters their red meat. That is why the clown show is being televised during prime time. There will be nothing fair about the hearings. 

          Meanwhile, innocent men who "trespassed" are rotting in jail without the benefit of due process. Yet, they pledge allegiance to the flag every morning.

          Brings to mind why Elon Musk said, I am now voting Republican because Democrats have become the Party of division and hate."

          Furthermore, many Dems are not aware that Trump said to "March peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol." Mainstream media did not report this fact for some time.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25w2vlfg88M

          I do not plan to watch the hearings at this juncture. A decent person can stomach only so much malevolence against an entire sect.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Many of the men who 'trespassed' and are being held, either violated court ordered release requirements or are deemed a danger.  That is well within due process.  One, Mr. Fellows, notes that the country had made an enemy by charging him.  So these are not patriots but rubes with a history of criminal activity or a belief they are above the law.

            And you guys can have Elon Musk.  If he's too dumb to see that Trump's GOP foments the same division and hate that he claims, the left doesn't need that kind of stupidity among its ranks.

            Most Dems heard Trump say to march peacefully one time.  They also heard him say to fight numerous times and that if you don't fight, you won't have a country.  Something the right seems to be more than willing to ignore.  Most Dems are also keenly aware now that the rally was never intended to march to the Capitol.  They were sent there by Trump, with no plan in place for safety.  At the very least, he is solely liable for the injuries incurred for sending the crowd to the Capitol.

            Not surprising that you won't watch the hearings.  There's a whole crew at this site that is more than willing to buy whatever Trump sells.

            1. abwilliams profile image66
              abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Trump isn't selling anything V, he was put out of business by a corrupt D.C. establishment, which you praise every chance you get. You sound like a broken record. I am sure you'll be tuning in with pompoms and popcorn in hand.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Actually, his dishonesty was put out of business by the American people.  Everyone could see that his lies during the pandemic cost lives.  He was so reckless that he got the virus himself. 

                And if standing up for the truth of the 2020 election makes me a broken record, I'll wear it like a badge of honor.  And yes, I will be watching, in the same manner I watched the Rittenhouse trial and was able to decide that he was innocent well before a verdict was read.

                That's what critical thinkers do.  They take in the information firsthand, and then come to a conclusion based on testimony and the facts.

                1. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Disagree, I don't think the American people put him out of business. I don't know anyone who would wear any of that fiasco as a badge of honor, it was third world-like, the video of Mules going around stuffing, much too convenient, ballot boxes all around town. What a joke!! Also, funny you would mention COVID, everyone that I know getting COVID, have been long time vaxxed and even boosted. ODD!?!
                  But credit where credit is due. Good for you on keeping an open mind on Rittenhouse, not all have, he may not ever have a normal life again, because there are many crazy people out there gunning for him, just like the cray-cray who sought to kill Judge Kavanaugh.

            2. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I've not heard of any past criminal history of any of the jailed individuals. Could not find anything. Do you have something I could look at....that is fact-based, and not an allegation?

              My understanding is that no one had any weapons at all, except the police.

              Trump offered to send the National Guard to the Capitol and Pelosi refused. I wonder why?

              Elon Musk is not a dumb person, but the Left hoodwinked him until recently.

              Fighting for our country and our liberty is a good thing. This is where you have ignored context.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Fighting your country and putting your personal liberty ahead of the country's is not a good thing. 

                And let's see if Patel's claim about the National Guard pans out.

                Here is your weapons link:  https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 … -they-used

                As to the past criminal history, I'm going to admit fault with that part of my statement.  In looking into the background of multiple J6 detainees, it is clear that I was wrong on that claim.  The continued danger applies as to reasoning for continued detainment in most cases.  I'm certainly not above admitting when I'm wrong.  Good call on that one.

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Valeant.... I do appreciate that you come from a place of concern over what you have learned thus far. I am still learning. Furthermore, I believe we may have some commonalities....

                  Thank you for the link. I looked at it briefly and saw the word "allegedly" used in the NPR article. That is not to say I am ruling out the entire article.  I look forward to reading all of it tomorrow.

                  Allow me to get back to you once I have reviewed it more thoroughly.

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    The pipe bombs that were alleged are fairly common knowledge at this point. 

                    And here is another link:  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/2 … iot-523178

            3. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well, that says a lot.

              Missed this comment earlier.  I have expressed my opinion of those who dislike Musk.

              I won't belabor that opinion here, its accessible in the "Elon Musk Makes Offer To Buy Twitter And Take It Private" thread started by GA.

          2. abwilliams profile image66
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            We are in sync on this Yves, per usual! Also, per usual, one of my comments was turning into paragraphs and so, I turned it into an article.

            I know that I will hear bits and pieces here and there whether I tune in or not, I'll know/we'll know early on, the direction [the Hearings] will have taken.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Hi AB,
              I read your latest article and appreciated it. Have not watched 2000 Mules yet because it is banned from YouTube. However, it is on Dave Rubin's site, so I'll check it out in time. Hope the move and the search for a new home are going well.

              1. abwilliams profile image66
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Thank you! Appreciated. I sure do miss having a 'comments section'.
                We have been so busy at work and with estate sales and yard sales and storage issues... that we haven't even thought about what's next. Thanks for thinking of us. smile

  7. Sharlee01 profile image89
    Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

    The panel -- including seven Democrats and two Republicans --- Need I say more?

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No, you nailed it perfectly. 

      It's called bipartisan:
      - involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I would say a bit out of balance, you have two democrats in Republican clothing.  But, It is clear once again we have an investigation that will be slanted, and laterally conducted by one party.

        "Fighting your country and putting your personal liberty ahead of the country's is not a good thing. "

        Very much agree

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          A bit out of balance, yes, but does not eliminate the definition of bipartisan.  And no, Liz Cheney is not a democrat in any sense of the word.  Ever.  She is a Republican that believes in democracy as opposed to the majority of her party that does not. 

          Kinzinger is a moderate Republican, but one with the common sense to see that Trump tried to remain in the power through litigation and incorrect legal theories.

          So, no, your claim this is 'laterally conducted by one party' is not true in any sense of the word and is just your attempt to undermine the upcoming results using a falsehood.

          1. abwilliams profile image66
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            In other words, Cheney and Kinzinger have made their feelings toward Donald Trump and Trump supporters perfectly clear, they are right where Democrats want and need them to be, taking up the space which {if fairness was ever considered} should be occupied by conservatives.
            The die has been perfectly cast for the Big Show!

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You got it.  They are the "token" enemy put on the committee as the least likely to interfere with the goals of that body.

              1. abwilliams profile image66
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Yep! For the record, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'll not hold my breath.

            2. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Again, your denial that neither is conservative is just plain false.  Yes, they may also believe that Trump bears responsibility for January 6, which makes them the few that were able to stick to the original sentiment that most in the GOP publicly expressed in the days right after the insurrection. 

              What it makes them is non-flip-floppers, people with integrity who won't lie just to remain in their elected roles.  You're right, they have been perfectly clear about who they believe to be culpable while most of the rest of the party has said two different things.  If anything, these are the people who should be the most believable.

              So what really makes you angry is that they believe Trump bears responsibility, not that this is some 'Big Show.'  McCarthy could have left Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls on the committee and chosen two others that didn't have Jordan's history of being there to undermine witnesses by grandstanding.  He never even asked Michael Cohen one question about his involvement with Trump, instead just attacking his credibility the entire time during that hearing.  You want to talk about partisanship.  He wasn't there to find anything, just to run interference in defense of Trump.

              But it still does not change the fact that there are people who usually differ on policy that have been in lockstep agreement on this issue.

              1. tsmog profile image85
                tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                In other words Cheney and Kinzinger are authentic and have integrity. I agree to that.

                1. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I hope you are proven right, we shall see. I've yet to see their authenticity. Perhaps it will shine through.

                2. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  About the only ones in the party that have.  McConnell, McCarthy, Scalise have all flip-flopped on their view that Trump bears responsibility.

                  The people here undermining the hearings are simply mad that these people won't join their cultish views that their leader cannot be criticized.  No amount of facts will alter their loyalty, no matter the level of criminality.  That's the really sad part.

                  I have shown that I can recognize someone as innocent who I originally believed was guilty by becoming informed on all the facts.  What you have here is people unwilling to be exposed to information to remain loyal to a potential criminal.  I have no respect for people like that.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "I have shown that I can recognize someone as innocent who I originally believed was guilty by becoming informed on all the facts.  What you have here is people unwilling to be exposed to information to remain loyal to a potential criminal.  I have no respect for people like that."
                    -------------
                    People in such a state are actually a magnitude or two below merely being just ignorant.

                    Ignorant is not  to know. Stupid is to not acknowledge ignorance, again a magnitude lower

              2. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Too many people are confused about Cheney and Kinzinger.  Their job is to represent the beliefs and attitudes of those who elected them into office.  That is their purpose.  Both of them refused to accurately represent those who elected them into office.  Their personal views are irrelevant.  That is the reason Cheney or Kinzinger will never again hold office as a Republican.  This is not a corporate job.  A Congressional representative is an elected position.  They are being held accountable by the voters who will no longer vote for them.  The party they claimed to represent no longer wants anything to do with them.

                They are simply low-life RINOs who have thrown their support behind democrats.  THAT is the only reason they are on any democrat committee. This only proves how politically biased this committee is and why it needs to be ignored.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            How many Dems are on the committee, and how many Republicans.? And I feel comfortable saying I assume if the tables were turned you would feel differently.

            Majority ---  the greater number.

            Majority   
            Bennie Thompson, Mississippi, Chair Zoe Lofgren, California Adam Schiff, California Pete Aguilar, California Stephanie Murphy, Florida Jamie Raskin, Maryland Elaine Luria, Virginia   

            Minority.
            Liz Cheney, Wyoming, Vice-Chair Adam Kinzinger, Illinois

            "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has appointed Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the rare vocal critics inside the Republican Party of former President Donald Trump, to serve on the special committee charged with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

            The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol is set to hold its first hearing on Tuesday. Kinzinger will join Wyoming's Liz Cheney as one of two Republicans chosen by Pelosi to serve on the nine-person panel. Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted in favor of impeaching Trump following the attack on the Capitol, and were the only GOP members to support the committee's formation last month."
            https://www.npr.org/2021/07/25/10204642 … -committee

              I would say a bit out of balance, with Pelosi and picking two like-minded Republicans, that were well known for their clear dislike for Trump. In my view, this panel has no balance whatsoever. I have no problem with either right to their opinion, but I would have liked to hear opposing views.

              However,  It is clear once again we have an investigation that will be slanted, and laterally conducted by one party.

            Thus far I have heard nothing that the media has not revealed.
            Thus far this product has provided nothing new.

            It has produced little talk on social media, and what chat there is, most feel it's a boring snooze fest.  Not sure what we are in store for, so I will save my final view until the big production is over.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Of course it is unbalanced.  As you point out, even the two Republicans picked were carefully chosen to support the purpose of the committee; to keep Trump from ever participating in politics again.  No one that might object was considered and certainly not allowed.

            2. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
              TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Adam Schiff is bad news.  One can always see the evil in his face every time he is on camera.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Ya know, my gut is, to tell the truth, so I admit when I look at this man I also see a man that will lie, and his face shows it when he lies.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                  peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Sharlee:

                  Oh I really trust what you are saying. I look at the same man and see a face of somebody who is sincere in what he is saying and would not lie under oath. 

                  What do you see when you look at Trump's face? What does your gut tell you about Trump telling the Truth? You do realize this is about Trump not telling the Truth right?

                  Oh there I am again bringing up Trump when I should be focused on Biden's poll numbers.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    We all have opinions, and what one might see the other won't. I was very honest.  I have witnessed AS openly lying many times, and he has been outed in regards to lying about Trump and Russia Russia Russia...

                    "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower."
                    https://www.politifact.com/personalities/adam-schiff/

                    All the Adam Schiff Transcripts
                    Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion. WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-ad … 1589326164

                    My comment was in regard to a response to a comment about Adam Schift.

                    My opinion on Trump has nothing to do with the subject.  Not willing to feed into your clear obsession with Trump. I have shared my opinion of Trump many times with you.

                    This thread is all about ---  Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In? So, not sure what you are referring to in Biden's polls?

                    It's clear you have a right to discuss anything you please. As I have the right not to have the need to repeat myself over and over.  Have a fun day...

            3. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Really, the amount of people that informed Trump that his election claims and who those people are is certainly new and significant to show he was lying the entire time.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                There are NO Republicans to ask witnesses questions or challenge their testimonies. That is one of the reason's it is a politically biased, one-sided committee.

                1. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  No Trump allies, you mean, since there are actually Republicans.  Thank Kevin McCarthy for pulling the three Trump allies off the committee that would have done just that.  That was their choice.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    I still say it is a biased, one-sided committee not worth the air time it has been given.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                My comment in regard to the majority was the in regard to the makeup of the Congressional committee that is investigation Jan 6th, and now holding a hearing. I feel it is made up of Democrats, and clearly partisan. Not sure why anyone could think differently about the makeup of the committee.   

                I have not really given an opinion on the hearings other than that. The media certainly covered the many that claimed to have given Trump advice on that terrible day. AG Barr throughout the year has given many interviews where he shared his interactions with Trump on his finding no fraud. He also gave a News briefing and made the same statement... No significant fraud to change the election.

                Other than saying I have not learned anything new.  You are clearly deflecting.  As I stated -- Not sure what we are in store for, so I will save my final view until the big production is over.

                1. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Not a deflection...an example of an addition.  You simply list Barr, who has gone public, while I am referring to Miller, Sepien, Ivanka, Rudy, the data analytics team.  These are several key people who have not been heard from in terms of what Trump knew about the illegitimacy of the fraud claims.

                  This was an investigation and these are the results.  If charges are brought, then there will be ample opportunity for cross examinations by lawyers for those charged.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Miller --  12:43 a.m. ET, June 10, 2022
                    Ex-Trump adviser Jason Miller says his deposition was taken out of context
                    https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … b75cb77c9d

                    It was well known that Ivanka and many with Trump that day had encouraged him to call off his supporters. It was also known that many with him on election night had concerns about him losing. Hey, as I said I did not hear anything thus far that has not been reported long ago by the media.

                    The media has well covered the "fraud" aspects of Trump's claims. We all were availed of the many court cases Trump brought forth on election fraud and the judge's opinions, and findings.

                    In my view, this investigation will do little to change anyone's mind. Those that feel there was fraud will continue to believe just that, and those that never believed there was fraud will continue to believe that.  There is where the problem lies. 

                    Very complicated the situation.

  8. Ken Burgess profile image76
    Ken Burgessposted 2 years ago

    I have had very little to say on this matter, other than to say I do not believe it rises to the level of "insurrection" or "treason".

    The whole idea of it being more than a protest run amuck, to me, is an absurd one.

    Were people armed? No... unlike what we have seen in places like Portland, or with the occupiers of CHAZ Seattle, where they had plenty of weapons. (I'm not talking about one or two handguns either, I'm talking Bullet Proof Vests and Semi-Auto Rifles like they had in CHAZ).

    I do have a quote, from a post I found interesting:

    January 6th was the opposite of an insurrection, it was Americans protesting (the devastating realization) that in the United States we have an election system of mail-in-ballots and voting machines that can’t be completely audited.

    Non-auditable voting machines are not by accident. Intentional road blocks & the lack of a clear system/pathway to be able to fully audit voting machines following an election in a timely matter is not a loophole, it is by design.

    As it stands now, the law protects the voting machine companies from having to give full access to all the code necessary to do a full audit. So none of us can say “they found no fraud” or that the “accusations of fraud weren’t true.” 

    We the people tested the system in the days and weeks following the 2020 election and the system failed. A non-auditable election bears the full presumption of fraud. 

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      And yet, a full hand recount is precisely what was done in Georgia and confirmed the result. 

      https://apnews.com/article/election-202 … 7fea581a09

      A full recount was able to be done in counties if a candidate asked in Wisconsin:

      https://apnews.com/article/election-202 … f4319591b0

      So, not sure where you got that quote, but it is patently false since a hand recount of paper ballots is in essence an audit of machine tallies.

      Let alone the multiple states that check various counties for issues such as Texas:
      https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/31 … ion-audit/

      What is apparent is that people who supported Trump do not understand how elections work.  Then, when they got fed a bunch of supposition during a once-in-a-lifetime election held in a pandemic where as many as 30 states changed rules to protect voters under legal emergency laws that had been used in multiple previous elections, they became even more confused.  When a state like Texas changed its election processes without consulting its legislature, then attempted to sue other battleground states for doing the same thing in the greatest show of hypocrisy ever, they simply showed their blind partisanship.

      When the losing side were told lies about the legal processes by idiots who clearly do not understand elections, and those people were told they do not understand those processes by both judges and state elections officials, they just doubled down on the lies until they were laughed out of courts and state houses.  With the exception of Arizona, which conducted a secretive and highly partisan audit by Trump supporters and still found Biden to have won by a greater margin.

      Perhaps you need to revisit the definition of the word insurrection.  It appears you do not understand it.  Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government. 

      Where in there does it say people have to be armed?  Was there violence and was that violence directed against the government, or in this case Congress which is the authority of government counting the electoral votes at the exact moment of the attack?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        To quote Abwilliams... Valiant you support  "a corrupt D.C. establishment, which you praise every chance you get. You sound like a broken record."

        You and I have two very different views of what a "violent uprising" is.

        What a surprise that is.

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I may circle back to arguing what I support since, as always, members of the far right try and take guesses at what it is that members of the left truly believe, and often misunderstand it badly.  Let alone the hypocrisy of telling others they support corruption in DC when those same people likely voted for Donald Trump.  Hypocrisy and projection, all at once - hallmarks of the American right though.  We see it all the time these days as a deflection method.

          Apparently, you have a different view than the English language about what constitutes a violent uprising.  Maybe you could ask a member of the Capitol police if they thought January 6 was a violent uprising.  Or Chris Wray, who labelled it domestic terrorism.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            FBI Director Chris Wray bluntly labeled the January riot at the U.S. Capitol as “domestic terrorism” and warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism that law enforcement is scrambling to confront through thousands of investigations.

            I am very aware that the FBI and other components of our government related to the NSA have targeted "domestic terrorists" as the number one threat to our government, more than China or Russia or Mexican Drug Cartels.

            https://www.reuters.com/world/us/michig … 022-06-09/

            https://www.worldtribune.com/peter-nava … -subpoena/

            In the coming months we will see more arrests, more raids, more investigations... though I doubt many will reach the MSM national stage.  Most will be done without much fanfare and little or no media coverage.

  9. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    January 6th Committee Public Hearing

    Live - C-SPAN

    https://youtu.be/lZJ56cXSI-o

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Was Jan 6th all planned out and allowed to occur by our leading Democrats in Congress?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGGjoyXvveI

  10. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    I think Republicans should treat biden EXACTLY the same way the Democrats treated PRESIDENT Trump.  EXACTLY. The only difference is, biden would deserve it.

  11. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tol-attack
    ----

    All Americans should keep in mind this fact,” Cheney said during the primetime proceedings, “on the morning of January 6, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power.”
    ---------
    This is the main theme behind this entire sordid affair. While the Rightwingers continue to mitigate and deflect, I am going to see these "plumbers" hang from the yardarm instead of Mike Pence. They don't get away with it,  not this time.

    The peaceful transfer of power under the Constitution is clearly delineated. I am still infuriated about the dirty tricks regarding electors and Trump's attempt to make Pense the fall guy in the certifying of electors process for what even Trump, as dumb as he is, knew was completely illegal. I will have his head on a stake as a result.

    Nobody gets to "break the rules" and expect to get away with it, NOBODY....

    While Trump and his henchmen are sent to the gallows, Rightwingers may well get the message.

    What happened on January 6, 2021, can never happen again.

    1. abwilliams profile image66
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      On that note, I will exit this conversation. I will not be party to inciting, hate speech.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I can't be any worse than Trump who certainly did not discount that solution for Pense in the presence of rightwing rabble. Imagine that coming from the President of the United States?

        But, whatever floats your boat, AB, and as Snagglepuss used to always say "exit stage left".

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Cheney said during the primetime proceedings, “on the morning of January 6, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power.”

      How would she know?  She is a certified and confirmed liar. She is so low in the polls in her state of Oklahoma, she is now insignificant.  A cowardly RINO.

      I will remain someone who is not naive or gullible enough to think this committee is anything other than a political show.  They prey on those who don't care about facts, truth or even logic. 

      "Nobody gets to "break the rules" and expect to get away with it, NOBODY.."

      Unless you're BLM and want to burn down cities across the United States? Hypocrisy and double standards on display by the left as always.

      1. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Nobody gats to " break the rules and expect to get away with it, NOBODY.."  Unless you're a Democrat, Liberal or Marxist.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        CBS nightly news reported that the committee had contacted ABC for help in convincing the public of what they want to say.  They have, indeed, hired a high ranking executive of ABC to help them.  He is listed as a "consultant", but not one in determining truth.  His only goal is to convince the public that a lie is true.

        Whereupon we have a tremendous media production in prime time.  The first two speakers (all I could handle) made it extremely clear that this committee is NOT investigating the causes of the riot or even who was involved.  They have already found Trump guilty, Trump is evil, Trump's actions were illegal, etc.  The intent is very plainly to remove a political rival from the field of politics (and preferably imprison him) and they intend to convince a gullible public of anything they can conceive of that will accomplish that. 

        They will succeed this time, too.  Donald Trump will be removed from any potential list of presidential candidates.  It won't be based on facts, but on convincing the public that a lie is true - that is what media excels at (how many ads give a false to fact impression, while staying within the letter of law?).  We are witnessing the fourth attempt towards this goal (Trump colluded with Putin and 2 faux impeachment attempts) but this time it is based on emotions and fear, not facts.

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          As always, Wilderness changes the news to make an argument that the facts never stated.  Since this hearing was going to be on TV, they brought in a television producer to help make it TV friendly.

          The latest fabricated scandal from someone clutching at straws.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            C'mon Valeant, it isn't disloyal to admit that the guy was hired to do a lot more than just help make the Hearing TV friendly. They hired the guy to make their presentations as professionally persuasive as possible. That shouldn't be a criticism, and certainly not a sin.

            Come on . . . you can say it. You won't get lockjaw or be shunned. ;-)

            GA

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              C'mon GA, have the stones to call this out as the fabrication that it is:

              'His only goal is to convince the public that a lie is true.'

              You can say it.  The far-righties here won't turn you into Liz Cheney for telling the truth.  But if you've having trouble identifying such blatant falsehoods, better sit this one out.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                You must have a short memory. I have said stuff that amounted to what you want to hear. I don't have a problem with it. I do think the goal was to convince the public of a lie.

                Maybe our difference is that I didn't assume it was a lie from the start. I waited for information that gave me confidence the claim was false.

                Your turn.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "Maybe our difference is that I didn't assume it was a lie from the start. I waited for information that gave me confidence the claim was false."

                  Maybe it was just my intuition, but with Trump's track record and behavior, it wasn't long after Trump presented the lie for me to know that  he was lying.

                  The actual evidence just confirmed what I already knew.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    That feeling of confirmation always feels good, doesn't it? Almost like you were holding a place for it because you needed it to come.

                    GA

                  2. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I was responding to Wilderness' post that the TV producer was brought in to makes lies into truth.  That's some serious fabrication that GA was trying to defend.

                2. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Did you even read the Wilderness post I replied to and what he claimed?  Did you go check the CBS article he referenced like I did?  It certainly didn't appear so at all.

                  Your deflection to something different than what Wilderness claimed and then some light mocking missed the mark pretty badly.  Many of us are fired up after the hearing last night.  We'll be coming in hot to the lies that we see today.

                  If you're trying to be funny, I'm not going that route today at all.  I'll be combative for a few days.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I can see you are full of 'combat,' so much so that you are criticizing things that weren't said. Your response must be directed at the exchange in general because I didn't find any of my comments that it could be directed to.

                    So what the hell are you talking about? I responded to your comment about 'saying it,' and I did. I didn't read any Wilderness CBS link because I didn't see one, where is it? What was it about? What Wilderness point am I trying to defend or deflect from?

                    Snarkiness is bad enough when it has grounds, but yours have none, and that makes your attitude, in this response, bullshit. How about explaining it? Let's see where the misconnection is.

                    GA

        2. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness:  Do you deny that Trump was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power to Biden?  That's all this is about. A simple yes or no answer will suffice..

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            If that is true, why do they need media to coach them on how to convince people a lie is true?  Why were we told the committee was charged to find out "what happened", but their only objective is to hang Trump?  Without, I might add, actually looking at evidence first?

            No, PP, it isn't about "did Trump try to stop the peaceful transfer of power to Biden".  It is about removing Trump from future political contests.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              They are putting on a media presentation to the world.  Wanting it to be done well is common sense.  Not some fabricated scandal.

              The what happened is that Trump tried to overturn a free and fair election.  They presented the findings on day one.  They did present some of that evidence in the first hearing and laid out what they intend to present in future hearings.

              And trying to overturn a legitimate American election is a crime.  It's about accountability for that violation of the law.  For a party that says they believe in the rule of law, it's amazing that that needs to be explained.

        3. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
          TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          ABC has become a propaganda mill like Radio Havana Cuba.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sure and I  suppose you thing that Fox news presents the truth...not

            1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
              TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I'm more of a C-Span person because I prefer facts over commentary, but . . . to each his own.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Why is it that every time a Fox News junky is questioned, they claim they just watch C-span?

                1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
                  TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, I didn't claim that I only watched C-Span.  I also watch other national news networks and even foreign ones (e.g. the BBC, Sky Australia and CBC).  I merely prefer C-Span over the other national news networks because there are fewer interruptions on it than on others and they deliver the facts as they are.  Even if I were a Fox News junky, it would have been futile for me to have watched the January 6th hearing on it inasmuch as they refused to air it.  Some people believe that I am a conservative Republican, but I'm really a moderate Independent.  However, it does not mean that I cannot agree with a conservative Republican on a particular issue, especially if that person is pragmatic about that same issue.  As I said previously, to each his own.

      3. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Considering you showed up to DC on January 6, any gullibility claims are suspect, at best.

      4. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I wonder how her dad, Dick Cheney, is reacting to all of this.

        Riots have been with us since the founding of the republic, Mike. Nothing new there. But never has the very heart of the deliberative processes of our Democrat system been attacked at its very source. BLM did not do that, and we both know it.

        Watch America de-evolve with the rise of the rightwing, take a seat and witness for yourself, the inane rising into and becoming part and parcel of mainstream conservative thought and ideals.

        Any attack on the United States Congress such as occurred that January 6th is unacceptable and the ringleaders and participants MUST be punished.

        Cheney did not have to say anything, anyone with eyes in their head can see what happened and how it was fomented.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "Democrat system been attacked at its very source. BLM did not do that, and we both know it."

          Huh???????

          I'm trying not to laugh because you actually believe this.

          BLM tried to burn down federal buildings with people inside of it. They burnt down police stations. They burnt down court buildings. They took over portions of cities and claimed to be a separate nation.  They did this in more than one city. 

          Do you know all that BLM did during their riots? 

          January 6 was a picnic compared to BLM riots.  You do know they cost over a BILLION dollars in damage?

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ever more of the standard rightwing duplicity, Mike?

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

            16-25 million participants in protests over many months, when looked at proportionally, is a drop in the bucket compared with the attack on the Capitol and the democratic process in one day. 19 fatalities over those summer months compared with 5 in one day from a group of less than 10,000. Who is "zooming who", here, Mike.

            So you can stop comparing comparing grapes with cantaloupe...

            "By the end of June, at least 14,000 people had been arrested.[4][38][39] By November 2020, 25 people had died in relation to the unrest. A report from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimated that between May 26 and August 22, 93% of individual protests were "peaceful and nondestructive"[40][41] and research from the Nonviolent Action Lab and Crowd Counting Consortium estimated that by the end of June, 96.3% of 7,305 demonstrations involved no injuries and no property damage.[42] However, arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred between May 26 and June 8 caused approximately $1–2 billion in damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, and surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.[6][43]"

            And yet, the LA riots did not last over several months and was not limited to a specific area, and did not have participants numbering in the millions, but rather, around 18,000.

            The savagery of the Rightwinger on display, 15 milion of their diehard participants would have destroyed the entire Eastern Seaboard, and killed thousands.

            Such is the way of the Rightwinger......

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I always like how Mike leaves out the participation of the American far-right in the same rioting: 

              https://www.police1.com/george-floyd-pr … PPFKRy53f/

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, and to be honest, I think that a large share of the violence and vandalism  was fomented by the right and otherwise criminal opportunists, as such a high percentage of the protests were peaceful.

                Because, that puts them in their natural element.

                1. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I'd disagree with your percentage guesses.  But the right's tendency to omit their side's participation in the riots happens all the time.

                2. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Easy to say things, more difficult to prove them.

                3. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  It's always interesting how liberals forget when liberals were the ones who stormed the capital building and other government buildings.

                  "Left-wing demonstrators have long made a habit of attacking, infiltrating, and occupying government buildings"

                  https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/07/8- … democracy/

          2. profile image73
            KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You have to understand the Democrats Marxist mindset. They think Trump and anyone who supports him are Nazi brown shirts racist and are deserving of punishment and therefore anything goes. Anything done to Republicans (Nazi) by Democrats is justified even if it's illegal. Democrats will not be brought to justice for their action so long as their actions are seen as punishment directed at Trump and his supporters as long as they are seen as Nazis racist. Just ask Gen Mark Milley who called Trump supporters " Brown Shirts" within a week after the J6 event. It's this mindset of the Democrats for the past 6 years. So if BLM and Antifa burn down the cities the Democrats will turn a blind eye, because they believe Trump and his supporters are Nazi Brown Shirt racist that deserve punishment. Democrats don't see cities burning to the ground as anything but punishment directed at Nazi Trump just before and after he was elected. It was fair game as far as the Democrats go. This is why Democrats are still trying to hang Trump.  They believe Trump is a Nazi racist and will NEVER allow Trump to be President ever again, at all cost Even if it mean lying cheating or a clown show or impeachment. This is why Democrats cheated in the 2020 election. This is why Republican go to jail for nothing and Democrats don't go to jail when their crimes are in plain sight. Two justice systems. The Democrats see Repubicans as Nazis. Nothing more and nothing less.  Therefore,  as far as Democrats are concern, THEIR ends justifies ANY means.

            That's the Democrat/Liberal/Marist mindset.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Another far-right person with no clue about what the left believe at all.  No one turned a blind eye to rioting during the summer of 2020.  There were plenty of arrests and plenty of Democrats condemned rioting.

              All you do is put your own delusion on display claiming that Democrats cheated in 2020.

              1. profile image73
                KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I like the way you put it "No one turn a blind eye" . Republicans didn't but the Democrats in power sure did.

                Name one Democrats holding office who spoke up against all of the rioting , looting, burning insurrections and sedition by BLM and Antifa in 2020.

                1. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I'll start with the easiest one - Joe Biden.  Not that your media sources ever would have shown you his comments.  This simply shows how uninformed you are about Democratic politicians and should shut your mouth about them since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

                  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 317862001/

                  From that link:
                  On May 31, the fifth night of demonstrations, former Vice President Joe Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, wrote in a statement that protesting police brutality is “right and necessary” and the “American response."

                  “But burning down communities and needless destruction is not,” Biden wrote. “Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And were those fine words, that it was right and necessary, all that he accomplished or did he take some other action.  He did have months, after all - what action did he take?

                    Personally I find it interesting, and revealing, that Democrats did absolutely nothing...until the riot was on their doorstep.  Only when they were threatened was it so horrible, so evil, so impossible to tolerate.  When others lost their livelihood, or even their lives, it was "Oh well, peaceful protests are a way of life in America".

                  2. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And yet, he has a vice president who supported the BLM rioters.  So, what does that say about him?

                    Kamala Harris praises BLM, says ongoing protests are 'essential' for change in US
                    Harris praised the 'brilliance' and 'impact' of Black Lives Matter

                    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala … louisville

                    She even encouraged people to contribute to a bail fund for the rioters.

                    "Harris expressed support for a nonprofit called the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which pays criminal bail and immigration bonds, and encouraged her supporters to donate to it during the protests over Floyd's death in the summer of 2020."

                    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harri … ters-bail/

                  3. profile image73
                    KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Did you notice biden wdidn't hold any office when he said. Also notice how there a illegal protestst in front of SCOTUS judgeshomes which is a FELONY under 18 USC. No Democrats speacking out about that. Remember what i said earlier. Democrats can commit illegal acts in plain sight and noting happens,  Republicans go the jail for nothing.

    3. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Cred, I can agree with your loathing of how Trump handled the election, how he is a loathsome character in general.

      But I really disagree with the idea that "Trump and his henchmen" should be sent to the gallows.

      Rightwingers will get the message alright... I just don't think its the message you intend, nor will their response be as you expect.

      I think we have a perfect storm on the horizon, economic instability, inflation, according to Biden we will have food shortages, power shortages... make a martyr out of "Trump and his henchmen" and the country, the "Left", will reap what it has sewn.

      I don't think you realize, at all, how deep the resentment is for the "Left" and for Biden, for Congress, especially the likes of Schumer and Pelosi.

      The signs are there, people are ignoring them... like Elon Musk coming out and declaring he was going to vote Republican after being a lifelong Liberal and Democrat.  Actors like Rob Schneider a lifelong Democrat rants and goes Republican.

      I think its going to be bad news, I think the Democrats are cutting their own throats with this, and with making Trump a political martyr.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Fine,we may well cut our throats and but we will get his as well. No one is above the law. So, a couple of guys who don't want to support Biden is no skin from my nose. There are many more that are disgusted with Trump and the Republicans, I can be sure.

        Biden will Right the ship and get the plumbers at the same time. Ken, you are so obvious in your support for this excuse for a human being, Trump.
        In another comment, you seem to imply that the whole country was wrong in not reelecting him, and that he was the choice of the majority. Hardly..

  12. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Not even his daughter believes his lies...

  13. peoplepower73 profile image90
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    RMN:

    Obviously, you didn't watch the  committee presentation.  If you did see the videos, they are irrefutable evidence, whether you emote about Liz Cheny or not. It sounds to me that you are naïve and gullible when it comes to Trump. That is exactly where he wants you. By the way, Liz Cheny represents Wyoming, not Oklahoma.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      A political biased committee serving a political agenda and putting on a show.

      It wasn't even worth the time day. 

      You are right about Cheney. I am right about her being hated and despised by those in Wyoming.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        RMN:

        It's interesting how you can call Cheny a certified liar when Trump has verifiably  lied over 10,000 times as president.

  14. GA Anderson profile image87
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    This one is getting as heated as expected.

    I watched all of it. It was, as expected, a production designed in every way to present a persuasive conclusion. That isn't a bad thing, it's a smart thing, and as Wilderness noted, both sides would, or have done the same thing.

    I think they went overboard with Officer Edwards but did a good job otherwise. That's plainly my opinion of the presentation, not its contents.

    The "new" information about the Proud Boys and Oathkeeper's timing and initial actions, via the film guy and his footage, was new to me. I think it is a crucial consideration. I condemned the incitement from the beginning, but I also strongly defended the folks I thought were the culprits: those at the rally that roared approval through the speech and turned to follow it when it was done.

    Those were folks that I see as ordinary citizens with passion. Whether I agree with that passion or not. Now, I'm less sure they were culprits at all.

    What about this one point; is my perception of the videos—that they are damning to the culpability of those two groups relative to actions and pre-planning misguided?

    Are those facts, (if they are facts): that the groups preplanned their efforts, and, that at least one of them headed to the capitol earlier in the morning, (10:30 am, or so), well before the speech, (which they apparently weren't there to hear), in order to act on their plan important?

    GA

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There were gullible Trump supporters, and two factions there to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. 

      The question becomes could those two group have succeeded in invading the Capitol if Trump hadn't sent the rest of the crowd to the Capitol - which was not in any of the plans?

      Once the violence started by those two groups, and was watched on TV by Trump, what do you think of his inaction and even support for the violence?

      1. IslandBites profile image89
        IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The question becomes could those two group have succeeded in invading the Capitol if Trump hadn't sent the rest of the crowd to the Capitol - which was not in any of the plans?

        Or, did they made the plans knowing that Trump would send them? Or worse, it was a coordinated effort..?

        Important questions.

        1. IslandBites profile image89
          IslandBitesposted 20 months agoin reply to this

          Text message that one rally organizer sent on January 4th

          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fe-DXIpXEAAdvA3.jpg:large

          "unexpectedly"

      2. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Makes you wonder why the Capital police held the doors for the protesters to go into the capital building.

        Also, makes you wonder why the left doesn't want to admit to Ray Epps and his role in instigating the move toward the capital.  The FBI admits to having 11 operatives in the crowd.  They don't deny that their operatives helped to instigate the move on the capital building.  Why would the FBI do such a thing?

        1. IslandBites profile image89
          IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You're right. They def held the doors.

          Watch: Capitol Police welcomes protesters

        2. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          RMN;

          Ray Epps is a conspiracy theory started by Fox News.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/us/j … dence.html

        3. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Conspiracy theories and lies.  This is why you were duped into coming to DC on January 6.  You'll believe anything.

      3. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Nope. I was talking about "one point." That point wasn't about Trump.

        The video of the Proud Boys marching to the Capitol, as a hundreds-strong mass, before the speech, seems legitimate and does affect my perception of the 'citizen' rally-goers.

        That thought doesn't relieve those folks of responsibility, but it does alter my perception. They might have been what followed the spear, but the Proud Boys look like the tip of the spear. A tip that was unconnected until the rally.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Film can be edited.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I know, but I don't think the Democrats would use an edited segment in this presentation. We can be sure the clips will be dissected in every possible way by Republican sleuths. I hope the Democrats already did, in their vetting of the filmmaker and his evidence.

            It may be possible that the use of the images could be contrived in the presentation, but I'm betting they are at least unmodified.

            GA

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I read an article recently. Maybe it has merit. Maybe not. What I surmised is that the Proud Boys are basically male chauvinists, and they see themselves as that, and as Patriots. I think it is possible that they came to the Capitol expecting to deal with Antifa and BLM.

              That is why they were organized.

              Things got out of control and they (and others) acted stupidly and badly.

              I do not think anyone intended to actually overturn an election.

              People wanted to be heard. 

              But about 800+ people decided to leave their brains at the door.

              However, those who were violent should be prosecuted.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                That's about it; 800+ people left their brains at the door.

                GA

              2. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Seems like a reach since there was never really much presence previously by either group at any Trump rallies.

                And it will be interesting to see the evidence DOJ lays out since multiple members have been charged with sedition and conspiracy, not just violent acts, entering the Capitol, and trying to prevent a government procedure.

          2. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Savydating:  The witness in those videos are sworn in to tell the truth. And that is the same for any witnesses that are brought into these proceedings.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it is important, if their intent was to storm Congress and instigate any form of violence or revolt.

      What needs to be separated are those individuals... the words and actions of Trump... and the people there to protest and express their dissatisfaction with the election process.

      Who is behind those groups, were they getting any funding from sources other than what they generated through their own efforts, and were they working in conjunction with foreign interests.

      We will probably never know the truth, but there is a likely possibility that there were some forms of paid political agitators in what Law enforcement said was possibly as much as 80,000 protestors according to then Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        No, we will never know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Not from that political committee.  It is not on their agenda and it is not their goal.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Its not, I never thought it was, it is political theatre.

          It is going to enrage the Left that much more.

          It is going to entrench the Right that much more.

          But if they choose to persecute Trump, it could very well swell the numbers of Americans determined to stand against them.

          Right now it seems they are pursuing that course... is what happened to Kelley the beginning of ridding themselves of political rivals?
          https://news.yahoo.com/michigan-gop-gov … 27720.html

          Trump at this stage, is not well liked by the majority of Americans, but if the "Left" wastes political capital dragging him through the mud, and making a martyr out of him... they are going to pay a steep price for it come 2024.

      2. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I also think the 'rally attendees' and the Proud Boys groups are separate considerations. Maybe the Hearing will present hints to the questions you mentioned.

        GA

  15. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    Only defensible by those who have lost their judgement.

    1. profile image0
      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      How many times does Trump have to be impeached before you will be satisfied?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Savydating:  Let me remind you, Trump is now a civilian.  He can't be impeached anymore, but he can be held accountable for his actions on Jan. 6

        1. profile image0
          savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Peoplepower,

          Figuratively speaking, Trump is still being impeached.

          Why?

          Because he exposed uncomfortable truths, and if he were to be re-elected, he would continue to upset the status quo that corrupt politicians (on both sides) have relied upon for more than 50 years. Longer, actually.

          I do not expect you to know what I am talking about. Nevertheless, I have a sense for your concern as a Democrat, and more importantly as an individual, even if I do not agree with your conclusions.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            As I said before, the irony is Trump claimed the election was stolen from him, when he in fact he was trying to steal the election from Biden. That is an uncomfortable truth for Trump and his supporters, and his supporters will not allow themselves to believe that. However that is the real truth.

            As far as what politicians have relied upon for 50 years or longer, I don't have a clue and you sound like it is some great dark secret that only you and Trump know about.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Washington D.C. is a swamp. You won't learn about that on CNN.

              1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
                TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                True.

  16. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16030846.jpg

    1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
      TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. :-)

  17. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    It would appear the "peaceful protesters" were VIOLATING A LAW which is WHY THE WERE ARRESTED.

    Those protesting the Judges of the SCOTUS may be "peaceful. That does not mean they are not commiting a FELONY under 18 USC.

    If there is protests without violation of the law, I have no problem with that.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Way to move the goalposts.  You're all for legal peaceful protests. 

      Honestly, I would prefer they were all that way too.  People blocking traffic or out past curfews should be arrested. 

      But those can still be labelled peaceful protests as no one was harmed.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, intimidating or attempting to influence a jurist is a trifle illegal.  But, as you say, they were liberals and thus immune to the law.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        How do you know they were liberals?  Assumption without proof, usually something you have an issue with.  Welcome to the dark side.

      2. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Wilderness;  Trump holds the highest honors for being immune to the law.

  18. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    I did NOT move the goalpost. You claim peaceful protesters get arrested. NO one get arrest for peaceful protest. No one. Protesters get arrest for violating the LAW While "peacefully protesting. I said No on get arrest for ONLY protesting. If I were to "Peacefully Protesting" while robbing a bank. I get arrested for robbing the bank, not peacefully protesting.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Look up the term peaceful protest.  Use google for a definition.

      Peaceful = non-violent.  Being arrested for sitting still qualifies as peaceful.

      Sorry, but robbing a bank is not a peaceful act.  It likely includes the use of violence or intimidation.

      We'll have to go back and delve more into using caps at a later time.

  19. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    Or the Committee will sway the independents to lose any faith in ever trusting a Republican to uphold their oath to the Constitution, considering most of the House and many in the Senate were in on the coup plan, according to Peter Navarro.

    Between taking away a woman's right to choose, obstructing common sense gun reform, and then being shown to have unified to undermine the results of a free and fair election, the GOP is showing themselves to be working against the majority of America on multiple fronts.  Not even the economy they trainwrecked by ignoring a pandemic will be able to offset all that baggage.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Between taking away a woman's right to choose, obstructing common sense gun reform, and then being shown to have unified to undermine the results of a free and fair election, the GOP is showing themselves to be working against the majority of America on multiple fronts.  Not even the economy they trainwrecked by ignoring a pandemic will be able to offset all that baggage."

      Geez, Valeant, I almost forget about this. Republicans and the Right better worry about  these upcoming train wrecks. Under the circumstances, they would do well to throw Trump under bus....

  20. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    Foreign interests...Paid political agitators...Maybe we can go back and check to see if anyone used a Jewish space laser to get into the Capitol.

  21. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 2 years ago

    I did decide to watch the Jun 9 hearing using a C-Span video, so now I am more interested as well as reading this whole thread. Anyway, as a Public Service Announcement below is what I have bookmarked for future use that others may be interested in. First, the schedule that I know of today is:

    Monday (Jun 13) at 10 a.m.
    Wednesday (Jun 15) at 10 a.m.
    Thursday (Jun 16) at 1 p.m.

    C-Span video of Jun 9 hearing. No commercials or commentary.
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?520282-1/ … e&live

    Select Committee homepage
    https://january6th.house.gov/

    And, for interest a New York Times timeline/event video of how Jan 6 transpired. Yeah, I know they have left lean bias, yet it is interesting and one can decide for self how factual. (40:32 min)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That was an excellent piece, well done, glad you made it available.

      Much to weigh there.  We are at risk of that type of response growing considerably larger and with far more violence and weaponry if the wrong decisions are made by today's DC leadership.

      One thing I can agree with, is the continued marginalization of Trump.

      I don't think it wise to put him in jail, I don't think it wise to give him any coverage in the MSM at all, at this point.  We need to put the Trump era behind us and move forward with whatever new leadership comes forth.

      They need to diffuse this, right now any decisions regarding punishments or incarceration that they make will be viewed as partisan, as biased, as vengeful by many who are not on the Left, right or wrong, that is how it will be viewed.

      I can only stress that 75 million Americans voted for Trump, at least.  You cannot just ignore the will of 75 million people... and you on the Left better wake up to the fact that when people like Elon Musk and Rob Schneider are suddenly trashing the Democrats, that is more than a Canary in the Coal Mine scenario.

      I don't think the Democrats are going to survive 2022 with $5 gas prices, skyrocketing food prices, and rent prices turning average Americans into homeless ones... I don't think they realize how unpopular their politics are, from 72 sexes to the Green New Deal, what they are supporting today are fringe positions supported by a minority of Americans.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        '...what they are supporting today are fringe positions supported by a minority of Americans.'

        Pot calling the kettle black.  Eliminating Roe, tax cuts for the rich, resisting common sense gun reform, still backing someone who clearly committed crimes to try and stay in power.  All of these were deeply unpopular with the American people.  It seems neither party really has great policies currently, so might as well go with the one that supports the Constitution.

        There needs to be accountability or what happened from November 2020-January 6 was simply a trial run.  And Trump is mulling an attempt for re-election, so I do hope he is charged with his many crimes so that someone more competent will think twice about doing something similar.  I doubt 75 million people believe someone that committed multiple crimes in the time after they voted for him should be let off the hook.  If so, that's just another reason to never let anyone they support into office.

        And way to list the fringe ideas of the party to try and paint the majority that way.  I'm shocked you left off defund the police.  Next time I list what the GOP stands for, I'll be sure to go right to the fringe and include white supremacy and Q'Anon.

      2. tsmog profile image85
        tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with much of what was said. But, what is this "you on the Left" ! I am an independent with a right lean.

        Edit: I did a write-in the last two elections - Teddy Roosevelt!

      3. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your gracious comments in regard to your sister in law. I think Valeant would say that I am at least as Left oriented as he is.

        But, I have a bone to pick with your comments here.

        I see a veiled threat, we are not going to back away from application of the law because we are afraid of ruffians returning, reacting with more of the same. I would say that this sort of thing will and should be dealt with far more severity by the authorities the next time. Complying with the law is the rIGHT decision.  Intimidation by the mob is an attempt to promote capitulation in advance. And it simply won't do.

        The Trump Era is not behind us, he still has his proboscis in every aspect of Republican politics, and continues to "stir the pot" nationally with his incessant lies and loathsome accusations. Until he disappears, he is truly not behind us.

        Is justice partisan, Ken? We forced Nixon out in 1974, it was not partisan, either you comply with the law or you do not.

        Trump, if he is proven to have a role in the 1/6 affair, and depending upon his level of involvement, should be either fined or incarcerated. Does the Right continue to believe that their Golden Boy, because he is a hero in their minds, is to treated as if he is above and beyond the law?

        So a couple of billionaires change course, is it not to be expected?

        Biden and the Democrat's current problems are separate issues, and are not to be used as a excuse to just let this 1/6 matter just slide.....

        I am among the 80 million that supported Biden, that is a bigger number than 75 million. Traditional and peaceful transfer of power in place for over 230 years cannot be challenged in an extralegal fashion by this usurper and any and all of his supporters. The threat to the Constitution, challenging the fact that the majority of the electorate is to decide the outcome of elections according to a mad group of insolent rabble and their handlers, is unacceptable.

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Shoot, I'd say you're a little farther left than me since I would have voted Kasich in 2016 over Hillary if he won the GOP nomination.  Experienced, socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.  Way less baggage than the Clintons.  That's why I had a good laugh at Ken's ridiculous comment about me.

          I'm just more in line with Eso and think there should be one reality and one set of facts than the alternate realities the right is more than willing to live in.  We tend to get right up in people's faces when they try and sell us on living in their made up, fantasy world.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You are probably right, Valeant. I am "out there". But when it comes to Donald Trump, we are on the same page. I supported Sanders in 2016, an ill fated campaign. But, as always, I had to settle.

            My views and principles are not doable in the real world as it is currently structured, but I vote for candidates and positions that come as close as possible to that.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You misunderstand what this is.

          This is politics and propaganda run amuck, this is four years of Russia stole the election, Trump is a traitor, BLM riots and occupations, culminating in a backlash that was Jan 6th.

          Sadly, you don't get what is really at risk, and that means those in DC who are more blinded by politics than you are, almost certainly don't get it either.

          I believe it was Valeant that mentioned Jan 6th could be nothing but a dry run for the real thing... Biden has done nothing to bury the hatchet but has said plenty of things to egg on those wanting to violently remove this government.

          What was his idiotic statement... Something like 'We have nukes and tanks'? ...as in we have the weapons to destroy our own citizens.

          We followed up the egotistical Trump and his 'make America great again' ... With a bumbling fraud that wants to start WWIII with Russia while rounding up half of America, threatening both with nukes, while telling Musk to fly a kite to the moon.

          Biden is making enemies everywhere, add to that the PUBLIC persecution of Americans that didn't think the 2020 election was legit, and a dying economy and you have the makings of a perfect storm on the horizon.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "This is politics and propaganda run amuck, this is four years of Russia stole the election, Trump is a traitor, BLM riots and occupations, culminating in a backlash that was Jan 6th."

            So, Ken, that is your explanation for 1/6 which was really nothing more than white backlash, resentment brought to its lowest level? The use of racial slurs and race based attacks and emblems throughout this melee, shows its true intent; White Supremacy, Damn the Democratic process, Trump wins or else....

            These people are just remade versions of ugly groups that I have seen and combatted over a lifetime. White supremacy and anti-democracy shrouded and excused behind some kind of general discontent, that is what this really is.  And you know something, Ken, I am naturally unsympathetic toward this kind and will not give them so much as an inch.

            The Rightwinger will direct your attention to the field mouse infestations, while rhinos are running us down.

            Well, I don't care for such types and their liquidation would not give me any sleepless nights.

            My issues with President Biden are separate and distinct from what occurred on January 6, 2021 as Biden had yet to be inaugurated at that time. His failings thus far doesn't not excuse nor mitigate what happened on January 6th.

            You are right, the public persecution of those that did not think that the 2020 election was legit is not ethical. But, holding those accountable for being an extra-legal active impediment in thwarting the will of the majority of the electorate is cause for PUBLIC persecution and hopefully, prosecution. That is to include EVERYONE identified as partaking in illegal activity regarding this matter.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              That is your opinion.

              You can find racists in that group for sure, just like I could find plenty helping organize CHAZ Seattle or within BLM.

              Does that make it easy for you, when dealing with a complicated issue that has serious consequences on the future of the country and its citizens to just throw the "Racism - White Supremacy" tag on it?

              I can't waste time on it.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "That is your opinion."

                Yes, it is and I am afraid that we will have to remain in disagreement on this issue at this time.

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "Does that make it easy for you, when dealing with a complicated issue that has serious consequences on the future of the country and its citizens to just throw the "Racism - White Supremacy" tag on it?"

                Ken,

                No, racism and white supremacy is just two of several tags that I place on an issue that is not so complicated for the truly discerning eye.

  22. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    You know what those people are that want to violently remove their government?  Domestic terrorists.  Yeah, I'm all for persecuting and prosecuting them. 

    If living in a media bubble that programs you to feel constantly aggrieved to the point that you need to turn to violence against your fellow citizens is how you choose to live your life, don't expect much sympathy. 

    Just as the left won't sympathize with the person who showed up to kill Brett Kavanaugh.  There are other civilized, but long-term, remedies to the far-right court's attacking of women's rights.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Those who do not comprehend history are doomed to repeat it.

      Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

      We must always look forward, but we have to understand our history in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past. I have seen too many instances where people continue to pursue wrong courses of action because they do not take the time to think critically about what has happened in the past.

      Civil rights attorney Leo Terrell called out Democrats and far-left activists for overt racism and a continued discrimination against White Americans and White policemen.

      "Basically, the extreme left has declared war on White Americans and White police officers." Leo Said.

      "They talk about racism. I'm a civil rights attorney. I know what systemic racism is. It does not exist in Chicago, and Los Angeles, and Baltimore," he said. "When the people running the show are Black people and Brown people, chief of police, they only play the White officer card against a Black victim."

      Where is this “white privilege.”  Obviously, it is not in the higher education system that gives out degrees in Social Justice and has a plethora of scholarships and safe spaces. 

      Is it in the capitalist corporations where white employees have to take “sensitivity training” as a condition of employment and learn that they are “systemic racists” and cannot discipline underperforming people of color?

      Is it in government employment where Biden has reimposed “racial sensitivity training” on white civil servants, guaranteeing that they cannot discipline people of color? 

      Is it in the US military where even special forces have to submit to racial sensitivity training despite the fact that they are ordered to kill people of color just recently in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and are being prepared for war against “the yellow peril?”

      Woke professors who lead the charge should find a copy of Hitler and Stalin: Roots of Evil , and become acquainted with their fate. Probably they cannot find a copy in library where it is likely to have been removed as “offensive” or “racist.” Whatever term does the job to get rid of truth.

      Joseph Stalin, tried to enforce militant atheism on Russia. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.

      And we all are aware of how Hitler persecuted the Jews, it started with little more than rhetoric, and ended a far cry worse.

      What we have today is free reign and free speech for any persons of color, for any "minority" sex or sexual preference, no matter how offensive or vicious, so long as it is in the embracing arms of Progressive Agenda or the Political Left.

      And we have a ever far reaching silencing and prosecution of "the Patriarchy"  "Old White Men"  and white people in general.  They are not allowed to stand up for their beliefs, they are not allowed to voice their opinions, they will not be allowed to stand in the way of Progress.

      Whatever it takes, however many must be prosecuted, imprisoned, or worse, they will submit.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, so white people are so victimized it gives them the right to attack their own country based on lies?  Give me a f****** break.

        And as someone who has had to do such training yearly as part of a job, everyone has to do the training, not just the false claim that its 'white civil servants.'

        What the actual goal is is to create a non-discriminatory workplace environment.  Many of those 'old white man's beliefs' still include growing up in a culture of racism and sexism.  You may believe that those opinions belong in the workplace, but I disagree, vehemently.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Well said, Ken. Hopefully, any outside visitor reading this thread will appreciate your statements and only feel horror for any racist statements here that are fueled by hatred of "the other."

  23. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    Yes, like BLM and Antifa. Violence is their way of getting what they demand. They will cause harm to ANYONE who gets in their way. They are MARXIST.

  24. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    And this is what I mean by a media bubble more than willing to make you feel aggrieved:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 98786.html

    'Don't worry, it's not people like you that carried out a domestic terror attack on your own Capitol.  It had to be all those black people over there.'

    A media environment that both excuses and turns your hatred towards minorities for something you did is pretty abhorrent.  And yet, millions (let me pull a KC to stress this) CHOOSE to live in that environment willfully.

    1. profile image73
      KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      people like you think only J6 was a bad thing. But Rioting, looting burning , sedition insurrection by BLM and Antifa also cause 2 BILLION dollars in damage to cities for 7 MONTHS in 2020 is nothing bad. But oooh those nasty mean Trump supporter are the absolute worse kind.

      This is the problem. You seem to be blind when it come to Rioting, looting burning insurrection and sedition by BLM and Antifa. But those nasty mean racist Trump supporters should be jailed and throw away the key, even if they had nothing to do with J6.

      I see both issue as wrong and bad and not good for America.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        KC:  Those are all verifiable acts, but none of them reach the point of trying to overthrow a government based on false pretense. What if they succeeded? Pence would be dead, God knows what would happen to Pelosi and how would this country be able to continue with a violation the of the constitution of the United States of America.  We are talking Revolution of the Highest Order.  Are you willing to live with that?

      2. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        As always, some far-right person tries to incorrectly tell me what people like me think.  All you guys do is repeatedly display how out of touch with reality you are.  I have denounced rioting and even agreed that it could have been categorized as insurrection since there were attacks on government buildings.

        Now, you seem to be in total denial that it was both the left and the right that did that attacking since members of the Boogaloo Boys were involved in multiple of those attacks as well.  But considering the link I just posted that targets you towards minority groups, I'm hardly surprised.

        I also see a difference in those Trump supporters, and yes some racists who carried a confederate flag into our nation's Capitol, in that the insurrection happened at the very moment our country was certifying the peaceful transfer of power.

        That many admitted they were clearly searching out our elected reps to murder them puts this on a false equivalency level compared to the social justice riots of 2020.

        And then you make a whole other completely false statement about what we believe about who should be jailed.  It seems that the majority of talk about people being up in arms about people being jailed is coming from your side. 

        The people still being held and awaiting trial are either continued threats or committed more serious crimes for which they will likely get time served as part of their sentences since they are going to jail.  The defense of those people who were involved in the conspiracy or assaulted police on that day is another attempt to show those people in a false reality.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image90
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Val: I believe Trump is sick. I think in his mind, he truly believes  he won the election, even to this moment in time.  He is a master con-artist which is a sickness in itself.  He conned those people who are willing to overthrow the government and all of his supporters.

      Those people who refuse to appear in the hearing are so involved with Trump and and their guilt runs so high, that is the only thing they can do.  According to his author, Tony Schwartz of The Art of The Deal, Trump is very good at making people beholden to him to the point they have no way out.

      There is a documentary called Inventing Anna. It's a true story about a German women who came from nothing and conned here way into high society with oligarchs and lived off of their money when she had none. She finally went to prision.

      You will see Trump at his finest in this true story.

      Curiosity Stream has a series called In The Minds of Con-artists. It's about several con-artist who have volunteered to be examined by a staff of shrinks to see what motivates them to act the way they do.  Again you will see Trump in all his glory.

      I watched another one last night.  It's another true story about a painter who painted little girls with big eyes.  It happened in the 50's and 60's.  Her husband who was not a painter, conned people into to buying these painting under the guise that he was  the artist.  He did this for 10 years and became very rich.

      When his wife finally took him to court to prove that he didn't do the paintings, the judge asked both of them to paint the girls with the big eyes.. She did it and he did nothing, but that did not stop him from believing until he died that he did indeed do the paintings.  You can google it.  His name was Walter Keane.  Again you see Trump in action.

      I have learned that when con-artists are confronted about their con, they play the victim to those who believe them and at the same time they attack those who have confronted them....and that is exactly what Trump does. Hopefully, he will be brought to justice...But I have my doubts because he is such a great con-artist.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The 'he believed it so it must not be a crime' angle is one I saw Kellyanne Conway put out there on her appearance with Bill Maher.  Maybe they should be looking to get Trump committed and not charged with crimes.

    3. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Of course the Trumpers are angry, me and mine are the reason Trump narrowly lost in the electoral vote tally from key states. I relish in their anger and frustration and say how "cute" they are when they are mad.
      ------
      Over the past decade, the Anti-Defamation League has counted about 450 U.S. murders committed by political extremists.

      Excerpt from a New York Times article:

      Of these 450 killings, right-wing extremists committed about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible for 4 percent.

      Nearly half of the murders were specifically tied to white supremacists:

      It is highly unlikely that Republicans are operating on all cylinders when they cling to such nonsense as leftwing groups behind the riots that day.

      Democrats make the mistake of trying to use principles of reason with the clearly insane. I just as well open negotiations with the grizzly across the table.

  25. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    Ooooh, so BLM and Antifa rioting in front of the White House threating Trump inside the WH is not trying to over throw the Government of the U.S. The injured Secert Service and Polive in the process.

    Where is the commitee hearing on that insurrection.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You mean the Bunker Boy incident where Trump was globally mocked for hiding from protesters?  Thanks for bringing that up as a reminder of what a pathetic leader looks like.

      https://hubstatic.com/16032532.png

      Considering that arrests were actually made in those events, charging people with insurrection would have been a Trump DOJ decision.  Perhaps you should pose your question to Bill Barr and not to us since it was his decision on that.

      1. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ooooooh, It's "those events" not a insurrection?

        1. profile image73
          KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Also you identify these thugs as Protesters, not as insurrectionist and rioters.

          Just protesters , hummmm.

        2. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Considering no one was charge with sedition, unlike from January 6, yeah, I can call them protesters.  Again, false equivalency.  Even Trump's people didn't see these protests rising to the level of an insurrection or they would have charged higher crimes.

          Keep trying to reach and make something out of nothing though.

      2. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        So Valeant, it's O.K. to attack the WH with the President inside, that's not insurrection by BLM and Antifa thugs. You call they PROTESTERS. They harm hundreds of Secert Service and police and that's O.K. with you.

        Sedition by BLM and Antifa in Seattle, insurrection by BLM and Antifa in Portland.

        Where does it stop Valeant?

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You keep saying attack the White House.

          "No individuals crossed the White House fence and no Secret Service protesters were ever in any danger," the (Secret Service) agency said.

          President Trump said he "couldn't have felt more safe," from inside the White House on Saturday as agitated protesters defaced property and burned flags nearby.

          Could it be that you're exaggerating what happened?  Especially since the reported number of injuries from clashes with protesters was not hundreds as you embellished, in the same manner you fabricated ideas about what other people think.

  26. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    It's no exaggeration. Answer my question.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, yes it is and I have the reported facts to show that. 

      I will never condone violence against police.  But there is certainly a difference between protests, riots and full blown insurrection.  I have conceded that Portland and Seattle could have been enforced as insurrections by those states.

      As a member of the party that believes in state's rights, do you concede they had the right to charge as they believed was appropriate for the offenses committed on their sovereignty?

      And here you go, they've written articles about the very whataboutism you're trying here:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … last-year/

      1. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        A left wing  Liberal rag, are you kidding me.

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          At the very least, you could look up the stats in that link to know that you lied about 'hundreds,' which clearly means 200+ to anyone who understands the English language.  It might make you sound like you actually know something about something for a change.

  27. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    Sedition and Insurrection are Federal Crimes against the United States, not a State. But Democrat lawmaker in high places protect THEIR thugs. Like Harris for example.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, so you can admit that Trump's DOJ, clearly hostile to protesters, did not level charges of sedition against anyone in the summer of 2020.  That his own DOJ must have been the one to be protecting people that could have been charged with such a crime.  Odd.

      1. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe you did understand what I wrote. DEMOCRATS lawmaker protect THEIR thugs.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image90
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      KC:  The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are paramilitary groups wearing combat gear and communications devices.  They came to the capitol for one thing only and that was to overthrow the government.

      Storming the capitol gave them the chance to dress up and justify their war games that they play with each other.  If they were really serious about the war games, they should go to a country like Ukraine where they can get their asses shot off in real combat.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        And yet, if you ask them, they went to the Capitol to preserve the government, not overthrow it.

        Not justifying their actions, but a true understanding of what happened has to include an understanding of the "why's" it happened as well.  Demonizing the rioters of that day as "insurrections" trying to overthrow the legal government does not do that; rather it does the exact opposite.

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          ...To preserve a government that was not selected for a second term and overthrow the duly elected one.

          There, I fixed it for you.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            And you think that is what was in their mind.  OK.

        2. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness;

          "Why did it happen?" It happened because for months Trump and Fox and MAGA news laid the ground work for it with his constant drum beat, if he loses the election then it must be rigged. Once he lost the election, then he switched to the election was stolen and stop the steal. It wasn't just that day as you say, it was months in the making. And all along the insurrections were preparing for it. So it wasn't just that day that they built the gallows to hang Pence?

          It does the exact opposite for you and people like you because you can't accept the truth as to what really happened that day and to the  days and months leading up to it. 

          If you would have watched the journalists' video, they give the reason they did it when called to duty by Trump.  It is because  they felt he was a great president for them and they owned the storming of the capitol to him.

          If you want to be turned off with the truth that is your problem.  By the way that is exactly what Fox News wants you and their viewers want you to do.  How does it feel to be influenced by their lies?

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Well, that is certainly part of the reason.  More (that I expect you will deny):

            A complete refusal to allow Trump to fight elections in court.  A refusal to even consider what he or his witnesses claimed happened.

            A refusal to allow additional security even after it was known there could well be problems.  Even after the riot had started.

            Such things are never simple, and an honest evaluation of the "why" will involve many different facets, not just TRUMP DID IT ALL!

            As you say, if you want to be turned off with the truth that is your problem.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              More fabrications.

              Trump's team tried and failed in their court cases and people like Rudy have lost their legal licenses for the lies they were trying to peddle.

              The courts looked at the 'evidence.'  We've had this discussion before and even posted the court cases for you to see where Trump-appointed judges noted that the Trump witnesses misunderstood election process and the rest of the evidence was just supposition and not actual proof of fraud.  That you deny these facts is you living in an alternate reality and spreading misinformation.

              With Trump openly trying to undermine the 2020 election based on lies, who in their right mind would trust him to send troops?

            2. IslandBites profile image89
              IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You knew, and know there wasnt any major election problem. You watched the infamous sex shop press op, then you thought well, maybe? But did you really? You know better.

              The only reason so many people believe so is because they believe anything that Trump (& co.) says.

              You can be reasonable. Honestly, you need to watch today hearing. Ignore the "Trump did this, or that" since it gets you so defensive. You'll hear it from Trump people, there was nothing. They knew they were behind well before election night. They knew there was no fraud. Even when they knew, they still investigated the claims. There wasnt any major irregularity. It was design by some to manipulate his base.

              Why isnt it obvious to some people? He did the same thing before. But then he won. He even said, it doest matter now because I won.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't, and still don't, believe there was enough election "irregularities" to change the election.

                But that has nothing to do with the refusal to even allow a challenge, and it has nothing to do with what others felt, and still feel, about the election...or the way all Trump challenges were dismissed without a trial.  Which was the point, and why I believe it was part of the reason the riot happened.

                It is real easy to lounge back and declare there was insufficient fraud, or no fraud, and therefore all people should have known better and therefore should not have rioted.  But all that does is ignore the thoughts and feelings of other people, declaring that your thoughts, and ONLY those that agree with you, have any validity in the world of emotions.  Life doesn't work that way.

                It would be like me claiming there have been no illegal police killings of blacks and therefore ALL the BLM riots should not have happened, and the feelings and beliefs of those people are irrelevant.  Again, life doesn't work that way.

                (Not to indicate there is EVER an excuse to riot, but it does help to try and understand the reasoning and address it.  Without that we are doomed to see more of the same.)

                1. IslandBites profile image89
                  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The problem (for them) is that thoughts and feelings are not how courts work.

                  That's why (even-a-little reasonable) people should listen to Trump WH people telling them there was nothing.

                  We understand, at least I do. They (most of them) were manipulated into believing any absurd claim Trump and his team said, even when they show no evidence. They still (believe it). And they will, no matter what. Do you honestly think "a trial" would have convinced them? Even you claim judges bias when things dont go well for Trump. Nothing would have been enough.

                  That's why IT IS relevant that Trump keep pushing lies about it. He has control over his base. To understand what happened Jan 6. you have to look at the big picture.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Of course it isn't!  Nor should it be; that we desperately want does not excuse theft...or the results of an election.

                    But when we simply shout out "You were wrong and therefore you should not have done what you did!!!" does nothing to help anything.  It won't even stop the next riot as those folks (your and my neighbors) still think they were right and that you are simply aiding the stealing of an election.

                    Would a trial have convinced them?  Perhaps, if they watched it and if they actually set aside their anger and thought about it. 

                    Oh, I think most (not all) of those judges made the right decisions; they are not there to assuage feelings, they are there to enforce the law, and if the law says Trump was too late to file then Trump was too late to file.  But that doesn't mean that Congress could not have at least made a show of looking into it.  Or some weird, actually bipartisan group (unlike the committee we now see parading on Prime Time).

                    Yep, I agree the big picture is needed.  Which we will not get from that fake committee; the first two speakers to hit the TV made it extremely plain that they are there solely to punish Trump and his followers, not to understand or investigate that big picture.  The entire thing is being used to keep Trump out of federal politics, not find answers, and is why I'm not interested in watching a fourth round of Democrats trying to do what they have tried before.  It is purely politics, nothing more; if it were honest there would be Republicans supporting Trump on it, there would not have been a reason to hire counsel to make the public version more emotional and convincing, it would not be aired in Prime Time.

              2. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "The only reason so many people believe so is because they believe anything that Trump (& co.) says."

                NOT true.  I could list the hundreds of articles illustrating proof of how the democrats stole the election.  You would ignore all of them.

                Watch the documentary "2,000 Mules."

                Unless you believe it is President Donald Trump who has written all of these articles and done this documentary, you can't logically believe he has that much influence.

                1. IslandBites profile image89
                  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz6smxo-MkE

                  I supposed it is hard for people to accept they got played. Others like it, I guess.

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    When the actual claims made in the documentary are actually investigated, they prove that D'Souza has fabricated his claims:

                    At a pivotal moment in the film, state-captured surveillance video shows a man depositing several ballots into a drop box before getting into a white Ford SUV whose license plate is visible, but blurred by the filmmakers.

                    “What you are seeing is a crime,” D’Souza says in the film as the video plays. “These are fraudulent votes.”

                    In fact, investigators say it was not a crime. And those were not fraudulent votes.

                    Rather, an investigator for the Georgia Board of Elections has determined the man was depositing his own ballots, plus the ballots of his wife and adult children, who are also registered voters. That’s all perfectly legal in Georgia.

                    So what you have, as what you had so often, is Republicans mistaking perfectly legal actions as something nefarious and then trying to sell those mistaken actions to their gullible base, who is more than happy to believe them since they lack any ability to do their own independent research and have been groomed to mistrust everyone and everything.

                  2. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Bill Barr? Hardly an unbiased source of information.  Do you have anything other than the opinions of a biased individual?

      2. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Well peoplepower, what make you think that some of these Proud Boy and Oath Keeps had never served before in the U.S. Military and deployed to hot spots around the world and have been in eal combat. and have been shot Unlike yourself who have sat behind a desk your entire life.

        Maybe they are protecting the Constitution and have done so before. Unlike yourself who sat behind a desk your entire adult life.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          KC:  You don't know me, so I will give you that. But you make the cardinal sin of assuming what people are like. In your  case, you don't know WTF you are talking about.  I served in the cold war on remote radar sites protecting your ass from the Soviet Union who wanted to bomb your asses into oblivion with nuclear weapons.

          As far as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers go, they may have served their country, I don't know.  I kind of doubt it though, because people who have served, don't usually get involved in the unpatriotic act of insurrection and overthrowing their government because someone like Trump with a sick ego cannot accept that he lost an election.  Trump is so sick he can't accept losing anything.  He always has to be seen as a winner.

          Speaking of Ukraine,  We have people who have served their country who are there now and putting their life on the line to help the Ukrainians against Putin Trump and Putin are a lot alike in that the both have very sick egos that are used to influence the masses.

  28. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    Well, you don't know me, I stood guard at a nuke site for four years at a location I will not mention protecting your asses from the USSR.

    You think your opinion in better than anyone who likes Trump. The best years of this country was during Trump's time in office. This country has never seen better than those four years of Trump.

    Now we have marxist running this country. With biden leading the charge.

    You expect us to believe the 2020 election was fair without proving half of the country evidence that it was fair. We're supose to shut up a take it. We can't ask questions

    Then the Democrats present a clown show for the J6 commitee that one sided. And people wounder why we are up set.

    What happened on J6 was not a good thing. But the American people deserve a open and honest look at what happened during the 2020 election. All of it. America deserves that much.

  29. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    'You think your opinion in better than anyone who likes Trump. The best years of this country was during Trump's time in office. This country has never seen better than those four years of Trump.'

    Well yeah, when it's an opinion based in fact it is definitely better than anyone who likes and listens to Trump and his lies.

    Some serious revisionist history there.  The Trump years were exhausting trying to figure out how he was going to embarrass us next.  And 2020 was one of the worst years any of us have ever lived through, thanks to Trump's America First outlook ignoring the warnings of the Wuhan Lab his State Department got in 2018 and a virus reaching our country as his inept folks ignored the playbook left to him after Ebola was prevented from affecting us.

    And America has gotten a lot of looks at 2020, but Trump and his base ignore anything that does not say what they want it to say and that is why we got January 6.  Ignorant people who only hear what they want, despite many experts telling them the exact opposite.  Judges, elections officials, the country's Attorney General, Homeland Security.  Shoot, even Trump's election data analytics people.

    Some people seem content living in an alternate reality and acting against our laws because of that.  So be it.  But don't expect any of us non-delusional people to shed any tears when the punishments are doled our for those choices.

    1. profile image73
      KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, with marxist running our country now I expect they'll TRY to dole out punishment.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        KC: "We're supose to shut up a take it. We can't ask questions"

        If you think trying to overthrow a government and obstructing the peaceful transfer of power is asking questions, then no you can't ask questions.

        You think there are Marxist running the country and I think there are liars who are trying to break this country, including Trump, The right wing of congress, Alex Jones, Roger Stone, Fox and MAGA news. 

        They all support Trump's big lies that influence the people who don't know any better and they are caught up in a conspiracy to defraud our government and the constitution.

        All of the people who have been subpoenaed by the Investigative committee are all accomplices to Trump's act of defrauding the country for his own personal gain of trying to win an election that he lost and further storming the capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

        You may call us Marxist, but in fact those who you support act more like fascist trying to overthrow a government.  They have lied to this country big time and I hope they pay the price for it.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You mean like trying to overthrow the government in several states and burning down government buildings for weeks?

          YOU on the left need to own those riots and stop being a bunch of judgmental hypocritical double standard Marxists.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That was such a weak reach to say that anyone tried to overthrow a state government.

            Both sides had people in those riots, so asking just the left to own them would be pretty disingenuous.  But congrats on also misunderstanding the word Marxist and just trying to troll by using it.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Val:  Marxist is just another word for socialism which they use to try to connect liberals with communism. They don't have a clue what real communism is. BLM is just a racist distraction because that is all they have to defend Trump's actions.

              They don't even realize Trump's MAGA  movement is actually based on  the tenets of Fascism.    That's why the groups who stormed the capitol did it because they are just like Hitler's storm troopers. They beat up people who didn't agree with their agenda. 

              At Charlottesville he sided with the white superiority groups who were shouting, "We will not be replaced by Jews." Trump calls himself an Economic Nationalists which means not dealing with other countries economically. (America First) That's why he places huge tariffs on other countries and we have to pay the import taxes. I believe he would love to be a dictator, but democracy and the constitution gets in his way.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "They don't have a clue what real communism"

                Well, I had many relatives grow up under a communist government.  I also visited this country ruled by communists. 

                It is YOU who have NO idea what real communism is about.  For someone such as you...it is all theory.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  RMN: Well if you know what real communism is about, then you know I'm not a real communist nor even a Marxist. Isn't real communism about the state controlling the means of production by a central government? Do you see that here?

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "Isn't real communism about the state controlling the means of production by a central government? Do you see that here?"

                    "For someone such as you...it is all theory."

                    Thank you for making my point.

                    This topic is too broad and would take me too long to respond. I believe the democrat party acts more like communists than ever before in the history of our country.

            2. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You need to read a bit more about it, they were FEDERAL buildings that were set on fire.  They set on fire federal court building, ICE buildings, etc.

              They also set up their own country.

              All the information about it is out there if you care to read it.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Really?  You think I need to read more about it? 

                The act of attacking a federal building in itself is not 'trying to overthrow a state government.'  If the idiots on January 6 attacked the Capitol when no one was in it, then the case could be made that they were simply defacing public property.

                Doing so during the peaceful transfer of power and trying to stop that process, while openly stating they wanted to kill elected representatives, certainly is an attempt to overthrow the duly elected government.

                As for CHOP, that was an occupation similar to the Bundy's in Oregon.  Was that also an attempt to overthrow the state government?

                Trying to compare an occupation to the assault of the Capitol during the certification of the electoral votes of a presidential election and the hunting of our elected reps is, like I said, a pathetically weak attempt at making a false equivalency.

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "As for CHOP, that was an occupation similar to the Bundy's in Oregon.  Was that also an attempt to overthrow the state government?"

                  IF you read about it, you'd know it's about BLM taking control of grazing land and then charging cattle ranchers to graze their cattle.  It was about the federal government telling American citizens they had to pay to use federal lands that decades prior they used for little or no money.

                  So, no, CHOP and the Bundy standoff were two different things.

                  CHOP was just a bunch of criminals destroying a city.  Their livelihood was not in danger from the federal government.  Unless, they actually had a business other than being criminals.

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Your post needs an edit...BLM did not take control of grazing land.  As for Bundy and his gang, they seized and occupied the Headquarters of the National Wildlife Reserve (pictured below), not grazing land.  To protest two people convicted of committing arson on federal land.  Yeah, those aren't criminals to you...unless it's black people burning stuff down.

                    https://hubstatic.com/16034048_f1024.jpg

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Great point...

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I'm a little disappointed that he forgot about people storming the Michigan Capitol without masks on and endangering your state's police by getting right up in their faces during a global pandemic.

              And welcome back from whatever trip you took last weekend.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I truely appreciate your welcome. Thank you... I think we have made progress on getting along. Obviously, we are both strong personalities, which actually I appreciate.

                The Michigan protest was mostly peaceful, most just in a caravan of cars. The protest was due to many feeling we were living under draconian mitigations. Which I respected due to COVID, but did feel it was time to left some of the restrictions. Our Governor did shortly after the protest lost her power to offer mitigations, and our health department took over the task. Our restrictions only lightened up a bit. But seemed more respect the department to handle the mitigations. The mitigations in Michigan were strict, and in plays somewhat longer than in other states.

                Being a swing state we had a split on the masks. In the order where masks were respected in all businesses, anti-maskers had no choice but to wear the mask. I did not agree with those that were at the protest that did not stay in their cars and disregarded the mask rule. It ruined our protest's purpose. It was planned to be a car protest. Many were armed and unmasked on the steps to the Capitol.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wait.  No police have been subpoenaed (or the police were Trump accomplices)?  No one responsible for the pitiful response to the riot was subpoenaed?  There is no effort to find out just when it became known there would be a riot and made the decision not to respond preemptively? 

          I would have to conclude, then, that the entire purpose of this committee is to hang Trump and anyone connected to him, NOT to find out what happened, why, and how to prevent it in the future.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Then, as usual, your conclusion would be wrong and based on a fabricated idea of what actually has taken place.

            https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/politics … index.html

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It may well be wrong.  I took the supporting fact from PP's post, where he said "All of the people who have been subpoenaed by the Investigative committee are all accomplices to Trump's act of defrauding the country"

              Have they, or do you think they intend to, show those interviews on Prime Time?  Will they subpoena Pelosi on why she refused help and televise that interview do you think?  Or Shumer?  The link says, after all, that there is intense scrutiny into that kind of thing.

              1. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Not may be, it is wrong.

                You do understand that most of the people interviewed did their patriotic duty and gave testimony without being forced by subpoena, right?  That PP is right in that only those subpoenaed appear to be accomplices to the big lie - which the committee is claiming breaks the law about defrauding the US, and will likely also qualify as wire fraud since Trump raised money based on that lie.

                I do expect to hear all about the security and intelligence shared in the days leading up to January 6.  I think it best you watch the hearings yourself to see what they are showing, not that I think it will alter where you want to assign blame in any way.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I asked if you think Pelosi or Shumer (particularly Pelosi as she is responsible for Capitol police) will testify as to why help was refused and insufficient precautions taken.  Do you?  And if so, do you expect her to tell the truth (no one else in the country would)?

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I don't care to speculate on that and will wait to get more information.

                    I know what the right claims about Pelosi.  But they also claim the election was stolen and that Antifa was responsible for January 6.  So what they claim doesn't really have much weight with me since to actually think those two things means you're so far outside of rational thought that it undermines pretty much everything else that comes out of your mouth.

                  2. peoplepower73 profile image90
                    peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Wilderness:  So now we know you watch Fox News.  I saw the same show where Hannity brought that up.  It is nothing more than a distraction.  The argument was that Cheny said they knew it was preplanned so why didn't Pelosi do something about it if it was...That is nothing more than a red herring to take the heat off of Trump...nice try.

  30. profile image73
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    Marxist are turing our country into a hell hole and walk on our Constitution. And I hope they pay the price for it.

  31. IslandBites profile image89
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CACKzSYpOE

    C-Span Live: January 6th Committee Second Public Hearing

    1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
      TheShadowSpecterposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for the info, IslandBites. :-)

  32. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    Wilderness and all Trump supporters should watch this testimony by one of the top GOP lawyers that have argued cases for the Republican Party, including Bush v. Gore.  They specifically discuss what we have been talking about in regards to the court cases:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1PkxMHB2F4

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why? Benjamin Ginsberg is a notorious anti-Trump individual.  His testimony is as biased as it can get.

      There are NO Republicans able to ask him questions.

      It IS a political show. It won't help the democrats this November.  I bet it will do quite the opposite.

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, he's notoriously anti-election lie.  But thank you for proving the point I made earlier.  That even the most experienced and hardcore former Republicans in the party are nothing compared to the word of Trump.

        I take it you didn't watch much of the video.

        You've been deep in the cult of Trump and a believer of those election lies, so no one expected you to be able to believe anything other than what Trump says.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "You've been deep in the cult of Trump and a believer of those election lies, so no one expected you to be able to believe anything other than what Trump says."

          You've worked hard on your gaslighting efforts.  Frustrating they're not working.

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Not really.  I wrote you off long ago, ever since you were convinced to attend January 6.  But don't think you can post your misinformation and slanders of decent and respected public servants without any pushback.

            1. profile image0
              savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I would suggest that wilderness take note of the libel flung against him, quite literally, and which occurs here (daily) on these pages and political forums by those who disagree with him and whose claims are not factual and which are harmful.

              At some point, Hubpages needs to take some responsibility for allowing libel to occur, according to the standards written by the company.

              Wilderness has not committed slander against you or anyone. Slander is not even an option here.

              Get your definitions straight.

              If no one else is willing to take notes or do anything about hate speech, then I guess I am the one who has to do it.... for the sake of "decency."

              But other conservatives should stop being passive. Hate speech, racist comments, and libel need to be addressed by Hubpages. It should be reported.

              Otherwise, we can have no meaningful discussion here or anywhere. Not to mention, libel is against the law.

              1. IslandBites profile image89
                IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Elon!

                1. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Who knew that the truth was hate speech?

              2. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Which is odd because that response was not even to Wilderness.

                But if calling out misinformation is your idea of hate speech, or these forums rules, then this will turn into the next Parler because myself, Eso, IslandBites all deserve bans because the amount of misinformation posted by a few members is off the charts and we spend most of our time calling it out.

                1. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL, it is ya'll's mission to straighten out us conservatives is it? All you are really doing here is "calling out misinformation"? I guess Cred didn't receive a copy of the Mission Statement! I left this conversation a few days ago after Cred asked for Trump's head on a stake and then suggested Trump & supporters be sent to the gallows. Maybe one of you should have "called him out" on it, but no, not one, dead silence on your end.

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    As you may note, I did not include Cred among those who are big on calling out the misinformation.

                    You seemed to do just fine on calling out the 'send them to the gallows' comment as inappropriate.  I felt it was addressed, apparently, as did everyone else in here.

                    It was explained that sedition is the peacetime charge for what occurred on January 6.  In a time of war, that same offense would be treason.  While I disagree with the comment, I certainly understood that sedition is on par with treason, which does actually have an option for the death penalty.

                  2. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Well, AB, it is kinda of simplistic to take Cred's comments literally, now isn't it? You all are saying that this gang of rabble on January 6th did not "really intend" to hang Mike Pense, but were just an overly enthusiastic crowd. You certainly resist taking "them" literally.

                    I detest Trump, and I make no secret of this, and thinks that he deserves whatever penalty if any that is warranted.  We all know that no one is going to the gallows, but I will be lucky if I can get this travesty properly addressed and those involved held accountable, seeing as so many Republicans and conservatives wrap themselves in lies like a warm blanket in Wintertime.

                    So, I guess lefties like me have to give as good as they get and can't go hiding in the corner whenever they disagree with a poster or comment.

              3. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                We've been on here awhile Savvydating, so I say this respectfully, bullhockey.

                GA

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  GA,
                  No offense taken.
                  I realize you have always been OK with hate speech. I recall your having said years ago that those people “should get out of the kitchen…”
                  This is an area where are you and I will always disagree. I believe rules should be followed.

                  1. IslandBites profile image89
                    IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I believe rules should be followed.

                    Like Twitter rules, right? lol

                    So no more free speech melodrama?

                    Elon must be sad.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    You nailed it.

                    GA

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        This I would disagree with.  Trump will lose, and arrangements will be made to bar him from ever running again.  Nothing more, but that is enough - it is the goal, after all.  Democrats do NOT want to face him again in a race for the White House.  For good reason, too.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The democrats will lose in November, and they will lose big, unless they come up with a new scheme to steal an election.

          Republican control of the house and senate will change everything.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why?  Just to watch Democrats once more try to remove a political rival?  We've already watched three attempts!

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Democrats?  These are mostly Trump's people telling you he lied to you.  And as always, you mistake someone else's motivations.  When crimes are committed, as they were on January 6, going after the organizers is just as important.

      2. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        For Gods sake, wilderness, read my post above and take action. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and mine and only feeding those who hate.

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Deleted

              1. profile image0
                savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Deleted

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  It's interesting that I have been banned in the past, but asking "why" never resulted in anything remotely approaching telling me who did it.

                  1. Valeant profile image87
                    Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, they sent me the links to the reported posts.  I know exactly which two users they involved.

                2. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Deleted

              2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Setting the record straight ---
                I would have thought you knew it was me that reported you for your personal insults. In the conversation, I reported you insulted me personally over and over, even though I ask you to stop, and warned you upfront I would report you. Which I would do again, and will in the future if you personally insult me or accuse me of posting misinformation. A view is one thing, information is another. I appreciate others' views and hope to have good banter. However, I think we can keep it clean without going to personal insults. Hey, I can play that game, and do it on some sites. But, I have learned a bit about the posters here over time and can see they try to keep it civil.  Which I prefer. I mean if we all let loose  --- holly shi- it would not be pretty. 

                So, not sure why HP Administration would have told you Savvy reported you?  I am very upfront and informed you I would report you if you got personal.

                I never felt you signal me out, I think you dish it up without discriminating.

                I have found other sites to chat, where I feel more comfortable for sure.
                However, I enjoy the people here, I find this group to be made up of very nice people, and a good mix of views can be found.

                1. profile image0
                  savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, Sharlee. HP does not reveal who reports hate mail, etc. I knew that Valeant had made up those things he said about me.

                  Appreciate your setting the record straight.

                2. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  They made me aware you reported a post of mine, and yes, you forewarned me that you were going that route.

                  And this is a good site to find out what the other side is thinking and arguing.  For us on the left, the amount of users that are blinded to Trump's lying and crimes is just amazingly concerning.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    I actually have been banned myself, and I requested the name of the person that reported my comment. I was told they do not provide that information.

                    I will get in touch with HP and complain about them supplying my name to you.

                    What is concerning to me as an American is that a minority of Americans (in my view)  seem to feel they have the right to judge and condemn others' views and attempt to subjugate by bullying with personal insults.

                    It is clear many Americans do support Trump, as well as many who support Biden, while many Americans have concerns about him. The point is citizens have a right to support whomever they please.

                    I don't feel I have the right to insult anyone personally due to a political view. I will admit, at times I would like to...

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I read it and appreciate your support.

          It is unfortunate to some on these forums are more concerned with denigrating the opinion of others, with insulting them and changing their words into something they never were.

          But that does not mean that I need to descend to their level.  Their words are there for all to read, just as you did, and that is sufficient.

          1. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I left it up to you to decide. Thanks for the feedback, wilderness.

  33. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16034825_f1024.jpg

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Lights, camera....Trump's own people, including his daughter agree that Trump knew he lost the 2020 election and still continues to lie about it.

    2. peoplepower73 profile image90
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Trump is so predictable as a con-man.  They all do the same thing when confronted with their con. They play the victim and attack their opponent at the same time.  That is precisely what Trump does.

      Now he claims, the hearing that was months in the making, is  a kangaroo court designed to take the heat off of Biden's performance.

      Here is the definition of a Kangaroo Court.

      1: a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted

      2: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures

      This hearing is none of the above.

      The other thing he always does is give his opponents names. Trump now calls Biden, Basement Biden. He will definitely use that in his rallies and communications to disparage Biden in so many ways. The truth is he wants the heat taken off of him and it is definitely heating up for him.

      He also used the term Kangaroo Court in his impeachment hearings where he played the victim and attacked at the same time.

      https://youtu.be/5sCp3jbjJ4E

      https://youtu.be/p5PfAhDmr1w

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        1: a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted

        2: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures

        This is the EXACT definition of the Jan 6 committee.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          RMN;  Sure that is why they follow the law and that's why everything is entered into records, so they can be incriminated when this is over. That's why witness are sworn in under oath.

          You are kidding right.  Give one example of the committee acting as a kangaroo court.  Oh that's right, you can't because you are above it all and  you won't allow yourself to watch it.  So you don't have a clue about what your are talking about, other than the propaganda Fox News feeds you..end of story.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            "You are kidding right.  Give one example of the committee acting as a kangaroo court."

            There are no Republicans on the Committee to question the witnesses and challenge their testimony.  It is a one-sided and biased committee.  Its sole purpose is to help the democrats with their chances in November.

            In that regard, it is failing badly.

  34. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Good, I am glad that it was addressed. I stand corrected.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No, you were right.  You were the only one that actually addressed it at the time by using your right to silently protest for a few days.

  35. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    No remorse from you whatsoever, right, Cred? In that particular post, you also wrote that plumbers should hang, not sure what you have against plumbers, but you certainly let your feelings be known that you'd like to see several people hang! How are you any better than whomever said that Pence should hang? Do you have evidence that it was a plumber? Could it have been a rabble rouser? There were many of them there that day, you know that, right? I suppose you think that they were all Trump supporters present that day! It wouldn't surprise me if you did.
    One and one half years later and we don't know a lot about that day! This joke of a committee have made it clear that they don't care to get to the bottom of anything. There is still missing video, they don't want to talk about Ashli Babbitt (or did they? I haven't been watching, just catching bits and pieces)
    My guess is that they don't want to get to the bottom of it and that their mindset is right on par with yours, desiring "the Republican party disappear"

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Let me clarify for you, my comments were hyperbolic in an attempt at emphasis.

      We all know that no one has been executed for treason since the Rosenburgs in the 1950's. So, you can rest assured that I have not just fallen from a turnip truck, and I am well aware of all of these things.

      (The difference) is that I don't have a rope in my hand nor am I unlawfully breaking in and entering into his place of business.

      Do you know what is meant by "plumber"? That is a not in reference to the trade, but to the apparatchiks (planners and conspirators) behind this entire sordid affair. That includes Congressmen and the wife of a Supreme Court justice and the President which can be proven if the evidence so  indicate.  It would include Trump's henchmen involved illegally in thwarting the democratic process.

      I don't like these people, anyway, but even they are entitled to a fair hearing and I will give them that. But if found guilty, I want the "book", a very big book, thrown at them.

      I am not advocating any extralegal approaches or remedies. Yes, there is a lot to still learn about that day, but ignoring its implications and sweeping it under rug as the RIght wishes to do is a non-starter. So, let's get to the bottom of it.

      What am I to make of Congresswoman Boebert of Colorado comment at a religious gathering  praying tha t Biden has a short life, in reference to his removal. A bit hyperbolic being said before crowds of people, don't you think?

      1. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think it has been "ignored" by anyone, it is front and center in the news, all of the time. I am glad that you agree, we need to stop the political games, get to the bottom of it once and for all, hold court accordingly for the accused and move on.

        1. abwilliams profile image66
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I would have to have to hear the entire comment of Boebert. Was she referring to his time as President? I too pray for his stint as President to be short lived, that doesn't mean that I do not wish him a long post politics, life.

        2. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          To show that as a lefty, I am always fair and above board, I wish to make a complaint regarding how Nancy Pelosi selected the committee panel.

          I don't think that it was right to not allow Kevin McCarthy, House Minority leader, the option to select 5 Republicans of his choosing.

          Ms Pelosi disqualified two or three of McCarthy's selections because they supported Trump in the denying of the certification of ballots as original presented.

          In all fairness to the Republicans, they should have been allowed to present their case in full. I wanted to know why the GOP members of the committee felt obligated to support Trump. I want to see these members question the accusers from a different tack so that we have a fuller understanding from both sides.

          As a lefty, I can see why Republicans may consider this a "kangaroo court" with an outcome preordained.

          For us all to have confidence in the results, everyone needs to be heard and have imput to help dispel the appearance of sheer partisanship.

  36. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 24 months ago

    This Amiga loves to see chivalry in action, it is such a rare find these days and no, I, for one, am certainly not looking for it here at HP, Cred!
    Savvy has made such great points, but it is hard to recognize them when all focus is on snarky comebacks instead.
    I assume you are referring to me as a folding chair? What you see as "folding", I see as standing on principle (another rare find here) You allow for your emotions to get the best of you often, that is when you begin to spew venom. I will put some distance between me and venom every single time!
    My chair is back on the lawn now, I've made my point. Bring it!
    Republican/conservative men {especially politicians}back down every single time. They think they can mix it up with the left/Dems and get the "atta boys", they so crave, but they always end up with a knife in their back. We the people ALL end up worse off, as a result, we end up with more criminals crossing our wide open borders, we end up with more aborted babies, we end up with men in our bathrooms.....sadly, I could go on and on!
    If there were more Godly, chivalrous, principled men, we'd not be the laughing stock of the world right now. We'd not be wondering what happened to so many young men in this Country? Why do they go out and shoot up their cities every weekend? Why do they target those smaller and weaker than them?
    We have some REAL problems, that need fixing.
    I for one, would love for men to be something close to the boys/the men of Pointe Du Hoc, with strong backbones and spines of steel and less like whiny, sniffling Adam Kinzinger.

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah, not sure I would refer to Kinzinger in that way...

      Prior to being elected to Congress, Kinzinger served in the Air Force in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.  He has always been a strong supporter of U.S. leadership in the Middle East, and he was among the first members of Congress to call for airstrikes against ISIS. He continues to focus on eradicating this threat with a comprehensive and detailed strategy.

      In 2007, he received the United States Air Force Airman's Medal for saving the life of a young woman who was being violently attacked. He wrestled the knife away from the attacker and pinned him to the ground until the police arrived. He was also awarded the National Guard's Valley Forge Cross for Heroism and was selected as the Southeastern Wisconsin American Red Cross Hero of the Year.

      1. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        That's what you got out of my lengthy comment V? You don't like my real men comparison. Maybe I should have gone with RuPaul!?
        So what happened to Kinzinger?

        1. Valeant profile image87
          Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Hey, just giving you an example that a chivalrous Kinzinger is willing to rush in a stop and knife-wielding attacker.

          What happened is that he could recognize a lie that led to an attack on our Capitol.  It's a shame that few others in his party can, or refuse to speak up out of fear of Trump retribution.

          1. abwilliams profile image66
            abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Make sure to stay on the right page and keep those talking points coming, I'll be here on the lawn waiting for something of substance from you.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Will you be waiting or just waiting to ignore anything that doesn't fit the narratives you already believe?  That's a redundant question, no need for an answer.

            2. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Now there's a mental picture worth a chuckle: you and Sharlee sitting in lawn chairs in the front yard, watching the 'Lefty' protesters march by.

              Heaven help any that dare step onto your lawn. I would buy a ticket to that show.;-)

              GA

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I think you have come to know me well. Add a couple of large Pit bulls at our sides to complete the picture. You see, I would be so sensible when entertaining myself at such a protest. ( I don't have pit bulls, but very sure I could rent).

                https://hubstatic.com/16036439_f1024.jpg

                1. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Now that's funny!

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I think we would know what some might call peaceful --- could end up needing a couple of pit bulls. I mean our common sense would win out. LOL

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

      I would say that chivalry in action involves more than conservative oriented men standing behind you with their pens at the ready.

      Those "great points" are relative, depending upon your point of view.

      Whatever ideas you and your two companions promote, should be able to stand upon their own merit. It is not reasonable to think that there will not be resistance and disagreement among so diverse a forum of posters. Having opposing views and such is not libelous.

      You are on the lawn now, make sure your chair does not fold up before you even have the opportunity to sit in it.

      There are a lot more Righties in this forum than those that advocate a reasonable liberal view of things. Yet, I allow no one to intimidate me as this has to be a struggle to disseminate information against a storm of misinformation and propaganda, in my opinion, which is not a task for the faint hearted.

      Republican/conservative men virtually run this country and that has not really changed. There is nothing for them to back down from, as they have always been on the pedestal. Any angst that they complain about is more just a political "slight of hand". America is a Red Nation, fundamentally. My side, the left, fail to appreciate how deeply entrenched that reality is and continues to bring butter knives to gun fights.

      Look how the country gobbles up the so called "Great Replacement Theory", promoted by Mr. Tucker Carlson, the Joseph Goebbles of the modern age. It always plays to a packed house and it is just a cover for intolerance and bigotry. He is Fox's top ratings draw. The Buffalo massacre was just a dumb kid physically expressing views out of control,  that many of you hold privately, anyway. Otherwise, why is Carlson such a "hot shot"?

      Principled men are not necessarily defined as "Rightwingers". Quite the contrary, but again, that is just my opinion. But I have never cowered from my own views yet, I remain open to correction. But, it had better be good.

      My idea of strong men are men of principle, that follow the rules instead of circumvent them as established under our Constitutional system. They resist intolerance, authoritarianism, autocracy, and lead by example, that to include all the other things that we were taught as Boy Scouts. There seems to be a dearth of that in today's Republican Party.

      1. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        V comes back with, "Yeah well Trump, blah, blah, blah" and with you, we get the old and worn out "intolerance and bigotry" comment. The most intolerant and bigoted person that I've taken note of in the past few years, was President Barack Obama; the many great strides this Country had taken, he knocked the crap out of, he beat it with some kind of ugly stick. His wife, with her, "couldn't be proud of America, until Barack came along", is just as bad, if not worse! Apparently, something is in the works, they are speaking out, along with mainstream media, along with Barack's and Joe's co-President, Susan Rice, with grave concerns about ole' Joe. The U.S. should be very concerned about what is up their sleeve, not what an Op Ed guy on Fox is saying.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          abwilliams:  Talk about hate speech!!! Where is savydating when we need her?

          1. abwilliams profile image66
            abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Just speaking truth, you would see that as hate speech. If you feel the need to report it as such, go for it PP.
            The Obama's, although elected by the people, twice, never let up with pitting groups of people against each other and making EVERYTHING about race. I am really sorry that you've never recognized it.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              I will go one step further, I feel Obama put the first shovel to our great divide. I so agreed with your comment.  So odd how if one disagrees with a view they just call it hate speech. Some here certainly need to have a look-see at some of their own comments. This kind of mindset always knocks me back.

              Race as well as hate-baiting has now become an art that some politicians use with great success.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                His just being a black man and being elected president is all the " divide" Righties have ever needed...

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't feel our correct on that  --  Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes stood as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate What percent of Ameican were black at that [point?     Of the total U.S. population of 308.7 million on April 1, 2010, 38.9 million people, or 13 percent, identified as black alone.

                  So, not sure why you feel that just due to Obama being black started our great divide. I voted for Obama, and I am a conservative Republican.

                  In my view, he was a president that just stayed under the radar, very much above his head. I thought him a good honest man, but a man that did in his second term seek to divide, he did a good job of it in my view.

                  I guess I should offer a comeback with the word lefties. Guess I did not get the memo we just don't care for anyone that is not our skin color. (being very sarcastic).

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Attacks on Obama's qualifications, his very identity and that silly Tea Party stuff began not long after Obama took office. That is the underhanded way the Right always attacks, knowing that it is not politically correct to speak of Obama's race as the real reason.

                    America is still a racist society in many ways. Obama did not have to say anything, and his moderate to Left of center politics was the cudgel used to attack him.

                    With the train wreck left by Republicans GW Bush, any Democrat could have won. The depression like era conditions experienced in 2008 for which Republican policies were blamed would ensure that if Democrats made Bugs Bunny the nominee, he would win. In spite of it, overwhelming minority votes with progressive minded whites, which to my surprise, were more than I expected, got him over the finish line.

                    I have a different view of Obama and his administration that is naturally the very opposite of the accusations from the Rightwinger. But again, that is just my opinion....

            2. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              ab;  You can rest assured, I'm not going to report you. I'm not like Savydating.  But you don't want to go there about Obama pitting groups of people against each other Trump is a master at divide and conquer, not just groups, but this entire country.  I'm not going to waste my time on that now, but rest assured, it is not my opinion, I can bring up tons of evidence to support my claim.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            I know I will regret asking --- What do you find "hate speech in AB's comment or her view?  She shared a view in regard to what she felt about the Obama's, Biden, and Rice. Her view is political in regard to intolerant and bigotry.  This is her view. Are minorities just off-limits, are we not allowed to critique their actions while in positions that we hired them for?

            Many Americans share her views. It would seem you feel you can discredit in the name of politics. Fair is fair.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Sharlee;: Val was trying to make a point about Trump and intolerance and bigotry, but Trump is not allowed to be mentioned in your forums.  It falls on deaf ears.  So what you guys do is switch to Obama and play the "What about Obama and his wife, Biden, and Rice and their intolerance and bigotry. card".  I never even thought about the racist component until you mentioned it..  That is pretty telling in itself.

              But you say that is O.K. because that is just your view.  However, we can't say the same about Trump when it is our view.  The fact is he is racists, intolerant, and a bigot and it can all be proven very easily.  Because it is documented truth.  That is the difference here. Can it be proven that what ab said? No it's just a view and in my view a very hateful one.

              You created this forum about the Jan.6 committee.  It turns out that event was all about Trump and the big lie, but now you and the others on this forum don't want to hear about him or the committee, so you pivot to BLM and Obama. 

              Here is what ab said:

              V comes back with, "Yeah well Trump, blah, blah, blah" and with you, we get the old and worn out "intolerance and bigotry" comment. The most intolerant and bigoted person that I've taken note of in the past few years, was President Barack Obama; the many great strides this Country had taken, he knocked the crap out of, he beat it with some kind of ugly stick. His wife, with her, "couldn't be proud of America, until Barack came along", is just as bad, if not worse! . Apparently, something is in the works, they are speaking out, along with mainstream media, along with Barack's and Joe's co-President, Susan Rice, with grave concerns about ole' Joe. The U.S. should be very concerned about what is up their sleeve, not what an Op Ed guy on Fox is saying.

          3. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            I know, he was the first Black president, so of course, you, like all the Rightwingers have to fabricate a way to reimage your own faults, fears and insecurities on  him.

            It reconfirms much of the tenets of CRT and that America fundamentally is a structurally racist society if it could be placed on a psychiatrist's sofa

            The turmoil that can come in the future over these things, will be the product of what the Right and all of its advocates will have created and a confrontation they are anxious for, to live up to the creed as they have always. That will be the harbinger for the late, great, USA.

            Only virulent racists would compare Obama in office with Donald Trump, but again this is the America where supposedly this no longer exists. Hmmmmm

            1. abwilliams profile image66
              abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Ohhhh I see, so you really meant Trump when you went off on Tucker Carlson and now your rage is directed at me because I dared to describe the Obama's in an unfavorable manner. I see how this works.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Don't try to be clever, AB, my rage is never directed at individuals while I shread their values, principles and ideologies of the Rightwinger and those that support them with the stroke of my pen. By destroying these foundations of the Rightwinger, the individual will eventually fall.

                I mean both Trump and Tucker, they are both just as guilty of fomenting these loathsome ideas. There is just not much daylight between them, Tucker is just more telegenic.

                If you really think that you see how this works,  I suggest that you invest in a good pair of bifocals.....

                1. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  I can't help but be clever and I see just fine, I've tested, don't need bifocals any time soon.

    3. IslandBites profile image89
      IslandBitesposted 24 months ago

      The House committee investigating the attack on Jan. 6 has released footage tied to a tour Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) gave the day before, showing a man taking photos of hallways in the Capitol complex before ultimately attended the rally itself.

      Surveillance footage shows a tour led Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) to areas in the House Office Buildings, as well as the entrances to Capitol tunnels.

      Individuals on the tour photographed/recorded areas not typically of interest to tourists: hallways, staircases and security checkpoints.

      Loudermilk was subpoenaed by the committee in May alongside four other lawmakers, but has thus far failed to comply with the compulsory order for testimony.

      The tours the day before the rally drew particular attention as the Capitol complex was still closed to the public due to COVID.

      https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/stat … 9918065666

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        In my state you can visit Washington DC and make an appointment to meet with your Congressman at the capital. They often take you on tours of the building and will often take you wherever you want to go and show you whatever you want to see.

        This is something done by Congressmen and Senators on a daily basis.

        So, the tour allegation is a big nothing burger.  Without anyone to ask those giving testimony about how common these tours are and how many places people are taken; nobody will realize how this is no big deal.

        That is one of the problems with a one-sided, biased committee.

    4. profile image73
      KC McGeeposted 24 months ago

      It wasn't the idea he is black. I was the fact he used the race card in the WH.

      Like they are doing now.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, he did, and so does Biden...  He is a sad clone of Obama. But Biden is the lefties guy. Glad to admit I did not vote for him. I am a rightie.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Is that just Democrats that your identification applies to? Maybe that excuse of reisistance by the Right is the reason WE are reluctant to support anything that they propose in any and all matters.

      2. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 24 months ago

        I really don't care.
        Oh I am sure you have volumes... I am not backing down on this. Obama sought to transform this country that he never had/has anything good to say about! Trump put it first, puts us first (as in, Americans!!) We are in bad shape right now with Obama's counterpart in office, finishing us off.
        I have never paid this much for fuel. Maybe with Carter, I can't remember what it got up to. I just remember long gas lines. I don't remember seeing empty shelves in my lifetime, but I have seen a few here of late.. My husband went shopping tonight, one bag of a few items, nearly $80. Things aren't good. But you go ahead and keep defending them, while throwing Trump under the bus every chance you get.
        The American people can see for themselves that we had a short four year reprieve and then Operation Transformation got right back on track, and it ain't pretty. Later

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          ab:  Trump has thrown all his followers under the bus and you don't even realize it.  You have been ripped off by Trump.

          Trump was 'extremely disciplined in grifting' and trying to use the presidency to make money, expert on fascism says

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7Kz

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            President Donld Trump was also a very gifted president.  There was low inflation, low gas prices, a booming economy, the southern boarder was contained, Putin was afraid of President Donald Trump because he thought he was crazy. He had the courage to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, we were energy independent, and on and on.

            Those who complain about President Donald Trump are detached from reality if they think biden is any type of an improvement.

            I believe the constant attacks on President Donald Trump are a pathetic attempt to distract from the disaster that is the biden presidency.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              RMN:  It was a matter of timing with Trump, he was riding Obama's coat tails on an economic recovery.  He didn't do anything to make that happen. Trump  plays to his followers fantasies.  That is right out of his book the Art of The Deal.  He downplayed the virus which caused 1,000  of more deaths because he tried to put a positive con spin on it.

              The gas, inflation, and supply chain issues are being felt globally.  Trump and Biden's stimulus packages didn't  help either.  They  created demand without any supply.

              Trump made  the economy worse by paying China 32 billion in tariffs for us to import products, When foreign countries went else where to buy agriculture products, he subsidized the farmers.

              McConnell tried to make  Obama a one term president, but they didn't succeed despite their efforts. McConnell said the same thing about Biden as well and they block his every move to make him unsuccessful.

              They are not attacks on Trump.  They are uncovering who he really is and  that my friend is reality.  He is a master con artist and all his followers have fallen for the con and they don't even know it. 

              I hope you didn't donate to his fund.  By the way, Alex Jones and Trump are birds of a feather, Jones pulled the same con on his followers and it is now shown, he was one of them who led the charge into the capitol.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                "he was riding Obama's coat tails on an economic recovery."

                Let me respond to this honestly, hahahahahahaha! That's funny.  President Donald Trump's record setting economic success started with something called a tax cut. THIS put more money in the pockets of companies and consumers.

                You need to learn a bit more about economics.

                I would love to go back to low gas prices, a secure border, low inflation, peace in the world and more.

                I always wonder if people on the left are angry because President Donald Trump was so good at leading the country or that biden is sooo horrible at running the country. Even democrats are beginning to admit biden is a disaster.

                1. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh man, you beat me to it Mike, I was going to go with:
                  Bahaha haha
                  Too short a comment? Bahaha haha haha! wink

        2. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          100% ------------

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Sharlee, RMN, and ab.  This forum as Sharlee has created it is about the Jan. 6 hearing.

            Let me make one thing perfectly clear.  I am upset that you don't watch the hearings because you think there is nothing new, just the same old mob scene videos, but you couldn't be further from the truth.

            In the previous hearing we learned that Trump ripped off his own followers by setting up a fund to stop the steal.  It turns out that 250 million was put into the Trump coffers and also  his close associates pockets.

            In today's hearing we learned that Trump in all his self acclaimed brilliance was snookered into believing that Pence had the power to overturn the election results.

            He was told by Dr. John Eastman, a Chapman College Lawyer, that based on historical precedence, the VP had the power and the right to reject the  electoral college votes and send them back to the states. 

            He was correct before 1804. After that, the 12th amendment was passed  which removed that power from the VP to do just that.  This caused the actions of the VP to just become ceremonial when certifying the votes.

            John Eastman further had an alternate sets of slates on standby from seven states that were planned to replace the existing slate so that Trump would win. 

            It would overturn the fact that Biden had not only won the popular vote, but also the electoral college vote.

            All of this was fomented by Trump and his people, including Giuliani  to create an insurrection that was planned to hang Mike Pence, if he didn't do the right thing. 

            So now you have Trump and his advisors following an outdated precedence that they were going to use to overthrow the government and create a revolution.

            As a side note, if a VP has that kind of power, then Kamala Harris, could determine the vote in 2024...just plain ass common sense.

            So where does that leave us?  Is any of this criminal and breaking the law?  We will have to wait and see how it is judged.  Stay tuned, I'm sure there is more to come.

            You people don't take any of this seriously and think it is all fun and and games and you are really hot stuff with your comments. But you don't want to accept the fact that Trump is a very dangerous to our democracy.  Our democratic republic is based on telling the truth, not lies that can overthrow a government if believed by enough people.

            But you continue to poke fun at my comments about about Trump vs Biden. You would rather distract from the truth about Trump and focus on Biden. At least Biden is not trying to create a revolution by lying to the public. I can live with temporary inflation, high prices, and a bear market but not a revolution.

            1. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              There are no Republicans on the committee to ask questions of the witnesses.

              It is a biased and agenda-driven committee.

              It has no validity.  It is not worth my time or the time of anyone who is interested in the truth.

              The reality about President Donald Trump is that he was 1,000% better than biden. The country was in a much better place.  biden has been an economic and international disaster.

              President Donald Trump accomplished this despite facing two bogus impeachments and having more lies told about him that almost any other president.

              The committee is nothing but an effort by the democrats to try and influence the 2022 elections.  This is motivated by fear of the red wave coming their way.  Republicans in control of the Congress and Senate will be the first step in fixing the biden disaster.

              Unless they figure out a way to steal the 2022 elections, they are in trouble.

              1. abwilliams profile image66
                abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Amen and hear, hear RMN

              2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I am very disappointed in the committee's makeup, it is very lopsided and one-sided. What is being revealed is very hand-picked out of thousands of people that were interviewed. So, it leaves me open to really wonder what the many others said. I too believe it is a political stunt, and many Americans will see it that way, and not even watch the hearings.

                Let's face there is too much going on in America and many are fixated on their own daily problems that they now must live with. Inflation, with all costing more, homes expected to lose value, and 4ks plummeting, many left to live on savings while many are being laid off, and much more.

                I must agree under Trump all was going along well and seemed to be getting better and better, even with ones in the lifetime virus. Our economy was stable. I have said it often Trump did his job well and was a born problem solver.

                Yes, I feel the Democrats are in big trouble, they have no ploys that will dig them out of the mess they have caused.

                We are in trouble with Biden, and it may only get worse. The wrong guy is in the White House and causing problem after problem with his policies.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              First, maybe cool your jets a bit --- I can only speak for myself. I certainly never said I would not be watching. I did say I would need to watch one on Cspan, which I did. I have wathe all three, and thus far the first two did not offer me any information I was unaware of except I stood corrected on the one revelation on the PAC he used claiming Trump was raising cash to pay for "his election legal costs, I admitted to receiving the letter. I did not donate on this occasion. From day one have made the claim I did not feel there was widespread fraud, and moved on from that claim. I have shared this all with you multiple times.

              I watched the hearing today and your synopsis of the hearing is well put together, and factual.

              I am aware of your fears in regard to what you believe Trump could do to the country. You have shared your feelings on that subject frequently. We don't have the same fears, I have shared I did not feel Trump would even run again, and if he did I would have no way to stop him...  So, I do not share your concerns.

              I don't appreciate your accusation that I don't take things seriously. That would be your opinion.  Your style of communicating in this way is one reason I dislike having any conversation with you. You accuse, and just don't listen to what is being said.

              If you don't like an opinion, you attack. I don't think anyone pokes fun of you. I certainly have been honest and bowed out of conversations due to our very different ideologies. Again it seems you just have a hard time accepting others' views.

              And yes I post many threads and comments in regards to Biden. I noted you actually very rarely will address anything Biden is up to. That is fine with me... I can take it or leave it, which I do.

              This thread is about the Jan 6th investigation, perhaps you could have just simply posted the best part of your comment, the facts that we saw presented today. There was no need to come in insulting others that don't hold your views. 

              I think many of us over time have become acquainted with each other's ideologies and styles of conversing. Why not just keep it nonpersonal?

              It's clear we disagree in regards to Biden, on just about everything. This thread is about Trump, right up your alley.  . Hey, I posted this thread, I was well open to not only watching the hearings but very much hoped the hearings would be discussed on this thread, as it is being chatted about on other Political chats. This is a very unusual bunch, I enjoy the forum.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Sharlee:  What do you call this from RMN?

                "he was riding Obama's coat tails on an economic recovery."

                Let me respond to this honestly, hahahahahahaha! That's funny.  President Donald Trump's record setting economic success started with something called a tax cut. THIS put more money in the pockets of companies and consumers.


                What do you call this from ab?

                Oh man, you beat me to it Mike, I was going to go with:
                Bahaha haha
                Too short a comment? Bahaha haha haha!


                And this from you

                100% ------------

                It's interesting that even though you watched the hearings, I don't think you grasp the fact that what the hearings are trying to provide is for what Trump and company did cannot be allowed to happen again.  Trump is already preparing himself or someone else to run again.  The election process has been setup in the states to already give him the advantage.

                I can not comment on Biden because he is still a work in progress.  I am hoping that before 2024 he can pull us out of this.  Your daily polls do nothing for me. The same for me commenting about Trump does nothing for you.

                However, business cycles are temporary.  What Trump and company tried to do goes to the tenets of our constitution and our democratic republic.  As I said before our democracy is fragile and cannot withstand liars who want to overthrow the government for their own personal gains. The republic will crumble under those circumstances.  There are those in our government now who are willing to put their personal interest above our democracy. The federal judge in todays hearing said it best.  Jan 6. and everything Trump did for months leading up to it, "is a coup looking for a legal theory."

                Yes there are more democrats than republican members in the hearing, but if you really watched you, saw that many of the witness were republicans and by the grace of god and under oath told the truth about what Trump tried to do. 

                RMN is doing a disservice to himself and the country by not watching.  All of those people who stormed  the capitol on Jan. 6 believed Trump's lies or else they would have not done it. They were ready to kill Mike Pence all because they believed the lies of  Trump, Dr. John Eastman, and Rudy Giuliani that day. They did not know any better, which shows you the power of lying from the president of the United States and his cohorts. This cannot stand ever again.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Again not sure what I can say beyond what I said. Again as I said your synopsis of the hearing was factual, and I will add compelling, one could say sobering.

                  In regard to how some communicate here on HP. We all have strong views and different ways of communicating.  I can see how passionate, fearful, and worried about where you feel  America could be headed. I too feel very concerned about the country. However, I see little I can do to right the wrongs at this point. It seems the country is failing in many ways. All I can do is use my one vote, which I assure you I take very seriously.

                  I am going to watch the hearings faithfully. I can assure you I am taking every bit in.  The two witnesses today under oath told their truth,  and both strike me as honest Christians. However, I think a full picture is better than half a picture. I will say thus far, I am shocked, disappointed, and disillusioned with what went on leading up to the Jan 6th riot.

                2. abwilliams profile image66
                  abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  My comment was kinda funny. No? It didn't even get a tiny smirk from you?
                  This Country is screwed up right now, no doubt about it, but we must lighten up a little now and then.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                    peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    ab;  Your comment was kinda funny to you, not to me.  I put a lot of thought into my comments.  This is a very serious time that we are in right now. Don't make me out as a  fool, just because you and RMN don't agree with my comments and you have noting to say.

                    1. abwilliams profile image66
                      abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                      I have nothing to say? I have said plenty about how I interpret all that is happening right now. No matter what else is happening in the world, no matter that targets have been placed on the backs of police officers by BLM and incompetent, progressive D.A.'s. No matter that BLM and Antifa got a pass for months for horrific and deadly behavior. They are still brazenly entering stores and stealing everything in sight and they don't care who gets hurt, if they are between them and what they want, desire, feel entitled to. No matter that a riled up weirdo showed up with REAL intentions, (along with multiple weapons) of killing Brett Kavanaugh,  It is ignored by the Administration, by MSM and by those of you on the left. No matter that the conservative justices don't feel safe, day or night. They are never left alone since the leak, they never have a moment's peace. Because of a leak!! Nothing has been decided and it is already this bad!! Find the statement by Jane's Revenge, never mind, I will find it and share it here. This obsession with destroying Trump, one way or the other, has consumed the left for much too long! It is a one-sided wrecking ball at the so-called Hearing. Y'all intentionally use words like stormed and angry mobs, but the majority of actual Trump supporters casually entered through an open door. I deduce that there were a handful of instigators, not on the level, creating mayhem. I deduce there were a handful of actual hot-headed Trump supporters, as well, creating mayhem. They will be tried. Will the imposters ever be brought in and questioned? We know the answer to that already. From what I have seen and heard, there were some angry individuals there that day, but I don't believe that Mike Pence's life was ever in danger, not like Kavanaugh's is. Cred likes to say he wants to see heads roll or see Trump's head on a stake, IS he serious? Are you capable of reading his mind to understand his true intentions? People get angry and say a lot of things they don't really mean. Nothing is fair, nor balanced, not when it comes to Trump and never letting up on him. I was shocked about the election. Went to bed and he was leading all across the Nation. Woke up to the news of ballots counted through the night, putting Biden over the top. It was suspicious, no doubt about it. Some let it go, others could not, much like this obsession with Trump.

                      1. GA Anderson profile image87
                        GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                        Well hell, you did have something to say.

                        GA

                      2. Credence2 profile image77
                        Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                        "Cred likes to say he wants to see heads roll or see Trump's head on a stake, IS he serious..."

                        Are we using my name in vain once again, AB?

                        Heads are not going to roll nor be placed on a stake, as that points toward savage practices of centuries ago.

                        But what I AM SERIOUS about is that all those involved in breaking the law in regards to this affair  are be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

                      3. peoplepower73 profile image90
                        peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                        Sharlee and all you Trumpers who won't  watch the hearings.

                        Let me remind you, this all started when Trump found out that Biden was running for president.  Trump not only demeaned Biden by calling him names, which he uses to brand all his opponents, but he started his mantra, "if I lose this election then it is rigged." He used the branding and his mantra in all his rallies and communications for months on end.

                        At that point, he set the stage for what was to follow.  Trump is a master con artist and this is the beginning of the con.

                        After he lost the election, he switched it to "The election was stolen from me and stop the steal."  Then he started a new mantra of voter fraud, This  caused countless states and people and money to recount the ballots.  It even caused election laws to be changed in red states to where the laws were to their advantage. He then contacted many state legislature to get them to find extra votes for him to show he won the election, but that didn't work.

                        His next step was to go to the courts where he was turned down 61 times.  Then he got false information about the Jan 6 information and how the  certification process could be rejected by the VP and sent back to the states were alternate slates showed that Trump won the election.  The plan was those votes would replace Biden's votes

                        But along with that he convinced his supporters including paramilitary groups to storm the capitol, resulting in deaths, injuries, and destruction of government property while seeking out Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi for not doing the right thing.  By the way the mob was 40 feet away from Pence and his family when they were taken to their shelter.   

                        This hearing is not a matter of destroying Trump so that he will never run again.  It is to prevent this from happening by any future president. If they would have succeeded in killing Pence and Pelosi  or whatever harm they would have done to them for not doing the right thing,  Trump would have caused a revolution in this country like the world has never seen.

                        You can complain about BLM and their riots, but I don't think, it would every reach the level of importance as to what Trump was trying to do just because he  lost an election.  The mendacity and arrogance, it takes to say, if I lose the election then it is rigged is astounding to me.  Just think if a football coach said, "if I lose this game then it is rigged. But Trump did and this started this entire process.  I have to say one thing about Trump, he is definitely persistent.

                        I  am going to publish this piece on HP and share it on Facebook where my hope is it will be further shared by my followers.  I think it is important enough for everybody to know what caused Jan. 6 to happen.

                3. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  And yet with these revelations from the committee, they continue to hesistate and fiddle faddle around in holding the players accountable. Th Rightwinger has to be anencephalic to not see the dire implication of such an attack on "our national system"  But they don't care, they are comforted with authoritarian, strong arm, autocratic types and I am sure that the very concept of Democracy is a inconvenient one for them. All the evidence since November, 2020, points in a single direction, but Righty is comforted with lies and misdirection, while so many others comfortably remain ignorant in the face of all of this. How this one man is treated as a God by all of them, when he does not even qualify as a man.

                  As you say, economic downturns have come and go, but what happened in 2020 and 2021 was unprecedented and if that damn committee is worth its salt, the message needs to be made clear thru harsh penalties doled out to those having acted unlawfully  that this can NEVER happen again.

                  Is it just a dog and pony show, or do I actually get to see heads roll?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    It is a dog and pony show, designed and intended to remove Trump from ever running for a federal position again.  Nothing more.

                    I have a hard time understanding how that committee could assess any fines or penalties of any kind, given that there is no chance for any defense.  We are guaranteed a trail by jury, with active defense, after all.

                    1. Credence2 profile image77
                      Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                      "It is a dog and pony show, designed and intended to remove Trump from ever running for a federal position again.  Nothing more."

                      I would even give Rightwingers the right to counsel (the American way) to make their case if for no other reason but to not leave any doubt or window of escape at penalty time.

                      Why am I not surprised, drat, foiled again.......

                      1. wilderness profile image94
                        wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                        LOL  You would give Trump counsel and presentation of a defense...as long as he doesn't escape punishment?  lol

                        But I do expect this massive media effort to yield results, in that Trump can never run for office again.  I think this 4th effort will give the result desired - there won't be a necessity for a 5th try.  A pretty chickens*** way to remove a political opponent, IMO, but I do expect it to work.  At least if they finish their skullduggery before the mid-terms.

                        It WILL be interesting what future presidents, of either party (or none at all) will have to face.  Will they see the unceasing efforts to remove them that Trump has?  If this kind of crap becomes the norm we might as well leave the Presidency empty and run the day to day needs by committee.  That way we can be assured that nothing will get done.  (Of course, Biden is already doing that - nothing beneficial IS getting done.)

                    2. peoplepower73 profile image90
                      peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                      Wilderness:  It's not a dog and pony show.  It is to make sure this never happens again by any president. Did Trump break the law? Is what Trump and his cohorts did a criminal act?

                      I suspect all the proceeding will be presented to AG Merrick Garland and it will up to him as to how he  judges the guilt or innocence of Trump and company.

                      I know for those who stormed the capitol, it was willful ignorance  based on what they believed from Trump and company. They were motivated to seek out and hang Mike Pence based on false pretense.

                      The problem with our form of government is that the president does not have the power to do hardly anything is this matter.  The only person above the AG is god and I don't think he or she is going to pass judgement on this.

                      Will there be a trial based on the evidence from the committee? We have to wait and see what the committee does with the evidence.

                      So the highest authority in the land is the AG.  As I understand it, The supreme court does not hold trials, but interprets laws and how they are to be applied. I doubt they would even be involved in this.

                4. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "RMN is doing a disservice to himself and the country by not watching.  All of those people who stormed  the capitol on Jan. 6 believed Trump's lies or else they would have not done it. They were ready to kill Mike Pence all because they believed the lies of  Trump, Dr. John Eastman, and Rudy Giuliani that day."

                  I always wondered how you can storm a building when the capital police were holding the doors for them to enter. The rest of what PP says is based on testimony and witnesses who have not been properly cross examined. PP's entire belief about President Donald Trump is based on conjecture and not facts. 

                  I find this sad.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                    peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    RMN; I know what you are looking for is a way for Trump get to get out of this with cross examinations from republicans.  But you see without watching the hearings, you are not getting an accurate picture of what happened. You are only voicing your opinion with wishful thinking.

                    The truth is there is no way out for Trump and company..  He screwed up by taking advice from a person who did not understand that Pence did not have the authority by virtue of the 12th amendment to do anything in the certification process other that rubber stamp  the process. 

                    Trump was led to believe that Pence could reject the process, and send it to the states where seven state would have alternate slates that showed Trump won the election.  Trump and his mob who stormed the capitol were all suffering from willful ignorance.  You would understand that if you would have watched. Beside that this is an ongoing hearing, not a trial.  Cross exam are used in trials, not hearings...please correct me if I'm wrong.

                    This information has to get out to the public, so they can understand what really happened. However you and fox and MAGA are hoping for a cross exam by Trumpers.  Fox and Trumpers don't want this information to get out to the public.  That's why they tell you not to watch it.

                    1. Readmikenow profile image94
                      Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                      "This information has to get out to the public, so they can understand what really happened. However you and fox and MAGA are hoping for a cross exam by Trumpers."

                      You have no concept of what is fair and right. Can you imagine during a trial if only the prosecution got to ask questions of witnesses? The defense and their arguments were neve heard.  That would be a one-sided kangaroo court.  That is what the J6 committee is.  They are afraid to have those who have a different take on things ask questions of witnesses.

                      This is based on a fear of having a truth revealed that would destroy the democrat narrative.  It is something that would easily be destroyed.  The committee is a joke. The people on the committee are a joke. I would laugh at it if it wasn't so sad.

                      The ratings are so low, so, most Americans aren't buying the J6 committee's one-sided, biased information.

            3. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
              TheShadowSpecterposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              "In today's hearing we learned that Trump in all his self acclaimed brilliance was snookered into believing that Pence had the power to overturn the election results.

              He was told by Dr. John Eastman, a Chapman College Lawyer, that based on historical precedence, the VP had the power and the right to reject the  electoral college votes and send them back to the states.

              He was correct before 1804. After that, the 12th amendment was passed  which removed that power from the VP to do just that.  This caused the actions of the VP to just become ceremonial when certifying the votes.

              John Eastman further had an alternate sets of slates on standby from seven states that were planned to replace the existing slate so that Trump would win."

              Peoplepower73?  I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but you got it all backwards.  It was not the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution but rather the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that appeared to be standing in Vice President Mike Pence's way from overturning the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021.  House Representative Louie Gohmert filed a court action to seek out a declaratory judgment that would have struck down the Electoral Count Act of 1887 as unconstitutional in that it goes into conflict with the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In other words, the 12th Amendment actually gives a vice president the authority to overturn the election results on January 6th rather than precluding him from doing so.

              If you need proof, here is a news article about it:

              https://tylerpaper.com/news/local/gohme … 2772d.html

              Here is a court document regarding it:

              https://casetext.com/case/gohmert-v-pence-1

              The legal tug of war between the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution was what raised the question on whether Mike Pence had the authority to do what you described on January 6, 2021.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Just another reason why it is necessary to modify and clarify that, without bonifide exigency, which to be defined clearly in any such revision, neither the Vice President nor any one person should ever have the power to nullify the votes of majority of the electorate keeping in how the Electoral College is to run.

                By the same token, at the state level this move by the Right to attempt to nullify popular votes and throw out results contrary to their desired political outcome is seen as tyrannical, and it is, and will not see the light of day without a fight. Just another reason why I dislike and distrust conservative oriented people. I read your links, yet the Republicans manufactured this crisis surrounding the electors based on false premises to begin with. No one steals my vote as that is grounds for war.

                Pence did the correct thing that day, averting the possibility of a sequel to our next American Civil War.

      3. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 24 months ago

        "We have demonstrated in the past month how easy and fun it is to attack.
        We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures.
        Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti."
        - Jane's Revenge

        Are they on a terror watch list? Doubtful.
        This is an outright admission of guilt and an undisguised serious threat...but, the focus must & will remain on Jan 6th, Trump, Trump supporters & their "intentions."

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          ab;  So you then you want this hearing to stop and start one on BLM and  and their riots. You think that is more important than a person who tried to stop a democratic election process by having a mob and paramilitary groups damage the capitol, kill and injury others and seek and kill the VP all under false pretense presented by Trump and company?  Nice try at distraction, but it ain't going to work.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            "you think that is more important than a person who tried to stop a democratic election process by having a mob and paramilitary groups damage the capitol"

            Okay, we've had the one-sided, biased J6 committee.  NOW, we need to have a committee to discover how an organization caused riots in several cities in the country and caused billions of dollars in damage.

            Yeah, that is pretty serious.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Jumping in here.  I think comparing the Capitol riot to the summer of love protests does give rise to what the American mindset has evolved into.

            The summer of love went on virtually all summer, by June 22, 2020, police had made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began, with most arrests being locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfews or blocking roadways. However, the arrest and crimes continued for months.  By June 8, 2020, at least 19 people had died during the protests, and more joined the dead over the summer months. list of those that died --- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … rest-acled

            There was also a couple of billion dollars worth of damages, many citizens lost their businesses due to these riots.

            While some media did show the full extent of what was occurring other media outlets did not and sought much of the time to claim the riots were "mostly peaceful".

            So, in my view, some American citizens made little of the turmoil, death, and destruction. While many are very disturbed about the Capitol riot, it did not in any respect compare to what happened over our "Summer of Love".  It is true each protest had far different causes the citizens were protesting, both were protests, both were violent, and both caused damage and death.

            It was apparent some found one riot was more palatable than the other.
            Are palatable riots excusable in our Democracy?  Should have Congress pursued an investigation into BLM? 

            I think our split society feels they can pick and choose what kind of violence is expectable, and what isn't.  Some may have seen BLM riots as being just, hell with how might be hurt, killed, or property damaged.

            Yes, we have two riots, different causes, but both caused death, and damage, both violence, one more so due to going on for many months. Yet, where is the investigation? Where were the shouts from Americans to investigate?

            I feel all violence, and law-breaking are equal and need to be handled equally. I don't care if one burns down a local business
            or a Government building. Crime is a crime. In my view, it is clear many feel differently today. Many today see fit to weigh a crime,  even justify a crime, and even hand out different forms of punishments to fit their own ideologies.

            This new mindset is foreign to me --- Thank God.

            When a society can look at the same type of crime (the summer riots or Capitol riot) differently, we are in trouble, we have gone backward,

          3. abwilliams profile image66
            abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Well PP,
            This particular ongoing hearing, would only cause angst to you and yours, if stopped, so that's what I think about "stopping it."
            If one is started against BLM, it must be televised in prime time and the panel must include David Dorn's widow and every other widow/widower of the many targeted and slain police officers and security guards, also the widow of the fire chief, mistaken as a police officer, the owners/operators/employees of the multiple small businesses set back or completely destroyed, veterans and lifelong sports fans who got kicked to the curb while BLM took over with their Marxist advertising and messaging for one too many seasons, the families on fixed incomes who sent money to BLM - thinking they were helping a cause & not lining the pockets of Marxists, liars and thieves.....I was planning to keep going, but this massive panel should suffice!

            1. abwilliams profile image66
              abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              P.S. So you still think that I "have nothing to say". I tried to lighten things up, you wanted no part of that, so let's keep it heavy! I hope you are sharing all of my posts (in their entirety) with your followers.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              ab:  The ongoing hearing is causing angst to you and probably yours as it continues.  That's why you want it stopped. And that is why you have to try to switch our focus to what about BLM.  Sorry, but in my book, those are false equivalences. 

              The purpose of this hearing is to prevent any candidate who lost an election from trying to falsify a sacred election process to show them as the winner. Further, hopefully, it will prevent another insurrection of the U.S. government from ever happening again.

              I'm curious, how do you apply Marxism to the BLM movement?

              Here is an article that describes the difference between the capitol riot and the BLM riots.  It does a much better job describing the two than I can.

              https://abcnews.go.com/US/false-equival … d=75251279

              Have a great day.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                For conservatives, the aspirations and equal rights for Black folks has always been "Marxist". Dishonesty from the Right is always contagious, anyone not legally blind can see the difference between J6 and the riots in 2020

                I like to know about the correlation between Marxism and BLM, as well. It the same stuff I have heard for decades from J Edgar Hoover and George Wallace and all inbetween.

              2. abwilliams profile image66
                abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Straight from the horse's mouth PP:
                https://youtu.be/rdpIIiBe7Wc

                1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                  peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  ab:  Thank you for that video that shows how people can interpret Marxism to mean whatever they want it to be.  This is from PolitFact and explains what Patrisse Cullors meant by being A Trained Marxists. I'm sure it doesn't mean what you think it does and what that black rapper was trying to suggest.

                  Backlash against Black Lives Matter includes branding it as Marxist.

                  The attack has been made in recent weeks by Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer; Ben Carson, Trump’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development; conservative talk show host Mark Levin; and PragerU, which has more than 4 million Facebook followers.

                  Aren’t sure what Marxism is, actually? It was developed by 19th century German philosopher Karl Marx and is the basis for the theory of communism and socialism. "Marxism envisioned the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat (working class people) and eventually a classless communist society," Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Reference say.

                  These days, Marxism usually means analyzing social change through an economic lens, with the assumption that the rich and the poor should become more equal. 

                  In a recently surfaced 2015 interview, one of the three Black Lives Matter co-founders declared that she and another co-founder "are trained Marxists."

                  But the movement has grown and broadened dramatically. Many Americans, few of whom would identify as Marxists, support Black Lives Matter, drawn to its message of anti-racism.

                  "Regardless of whatever the professed politics of people may be who are prominent in the movement, they don’t represent its breadth," said Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Princeton University African American Studies professor and author of "From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation."

                  "There are definitely socialists within the movement, as there have been in every single social movement in 20th century American history and today. But that does not make those socialist movements, it makes them mass movements," she said.

                  ‘Trained Marxists’
                  In a Facebook post labeling Black Lives Matter as a Marxist movement, PragerU included a video interview with Carol Swain, a Black conservative and former professor at Vanderbilt and Princeton universities. She said, "Now, the founders of Black Lives Matter, they’ve come out as Marxists."

                  Swain alluded to Black Lives Matter’s three co-founders, who are still featured prominently on the group’s website — Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi. Their primary backgrounds are as community organizers, artists and writers. Swain, though, was referring to a newly surfaced interview Cullors did in 2015, where she said:

                  "We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many Black folks."

                  We didn’t find that Garza and Tometi have referred to themselves as Marxists. But the book publisher Penguin Random House has said Garza, an author, "describes herself as a queer social justice activist and Marxist."

                  What Black Lives Matter says
                  Black Lives Matter was formed in response to the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, in Florida. The group calls its three co-founders "radical Black organizers."

                  The project started with a mission "to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes," the group’s website says. "In the years since, we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic and political power to thrive."

                  Included on its list of beliefs is one that has drawn criticism as being consistent with Marxism:

                  "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

                  A spokesperson for Black Lives Matter; Kailee Scales, managing director at Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation; and the three co-founders did not reply to our requests for information.

                  "On one level, these are just put downs," University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor Richard Wolff, author of "Understanding Marxism," told PolitiFact about the attacks on Black Lives Matter.

                  If people declare themselves Marxists, they are in effect Marxists, but "there really is no standard" of what Marxism is, "there’s no way to verify anything."

                  Black Lives Matter today
                  It’s important to recognize that movements evolve.

                  Noting Cullors’ declaration of being Marxist trained, "one has to take that seriously: if the leadership says it is Marxist, then there's a good chance they are," said Russell Berman, a professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow at its conservative Hoover Institution who has written critically about Marxism.

                  But "this does not mean every supporter is Marxist — Marxists often have used ‘useful idiots.’ And a Marxist movement can be more or less radical, at different points in time," he said.

                  Black Lives Matter’s "emphatic support for gender identity politics sets it apart from historical Marxism," and the goals listed on its website "do not appear to be expressly anti-capitalist, which would arguably be a Marxist identifier," Berman added.

                  The group’s support is broad.

                  Even as some Americans express support for socialism, most view it negatively, and few of the supporters would identify themselves as Marxist.

                  Meanwhile, 50% of registered voters support Black Lives Matter as of mid-July, up from 37% in April 2017, according to Civiqs, an online survey research firm.

                  In July, the New York Times reported that Black Lives Matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history, as four polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of Floyd and others in recent weeks. (That does not account for similar protests overseas.)

                  "I am fairly convinced these are mostly attempts to smear anti-racist activists. I think in some media, ‘Marxist’ is dog-whistle for something horrible, like ‘Nazi’, and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them," Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communication, told PolitiFact.

                  Black Lives Matter "is not an organization, but a fluid movement; it doesn’t actually matter if one of its founders was a liberal, Marxist, socialist or capitalist."

      4. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
        Kathleen Cochranposted 24 months ago

        " it did not in any respect compare to what happened over our "Summer of Love". You are absolutely right. The Summer of Love did not make any attempt to  undermine our Constitution or destroy democracy. Other than that, your analogy is ridiculous. When a society can look at the Capitol Insurrection and not see multiple crimes starting with the then-president - we are definitely in trouble.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Sharlee and all you Trumpers who won't watch the hearings.

          Let me remind you, this all started when Trump found out that Biden was running for president.  Trump not only demeaned Biden by calling him derogatory names, which he uses to brand all his opponents, but he started his mantra, "if I lose this election then it is rigged." He used the branding and his mantra in all his rallies and communications for months on end.

          At that point, he set the stage for what was to follow.  Trump is a master con artist and this is the beginning of the con.

          After he lost the election, he switched it to "The election was stolen from me and stop the steal."  Then he started a new mantra of voter fraud, This  caused countless states and people and money to recount the ballots.  It even caused election laws to be changed in red states to where the laws were to their advantage. He then contacted many state legislature to get them to find extra votes for him to show he won the election, but that didn't work either.

          His next step was to go to the courts where he was turned down 61 times.  Then he got false information about the Jan 6 information and how the  certification process could be rejected by the VP and sent back to the states were alternate slates showed that Trump won the election.  The plan was those votes would replace Biden's votes.

          But along with that he convinced his supporters including paramilitary groups to storm the capitol, resulting in deaths, injuries, and destruction of government property while seeking out Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi for not doing the right thing.  By the way the mob was 40 feet away from Pence and his family when they were taken to their shelter. It turns out Mike Pence didn't have the power to stop the certification process because the 12the amendment won't allow it to happen.

          This hearing is not a matter of destroying Trump so that he will never run again.  It is to prevent this from happening by any future president. If they would have succeeded in killing Pence and Pelosi  or whatever harm they would have done to them for not doing the right thing,  Trump would have caused a revolution in this country like the world has never seen.

          You can complain about BLM and their riots, but I don't think, it would ever reach the level of importance as to what Trump was trying to do just because he  lost an election. 

          The mendacity and arrogance, it takes to say, if I lose the election then it is rigged is astounding to me.  Just think if a football coach said, "if I lose this game then it is rigged. But Trump did and this started this entire process.  I have to say one thing about Trump, he is definitely persistent.

          I  am going to publish this piece on HP and share it on Facebook where my hope is it will be further shared by my followers.  I think it is important enough for everybody to know what caused Jan. 6 to happen.

          Everything I have posted here is the god's honest truth and can be verified as such, no cross examination by selected republicans can dispute that or the findings of the Jan. 6 committee. Many of the witnesses thus far are republicans and close associates of Trump's inner circle, including Ivanka and Jarred Kushner.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            I think what we need is a committee to look at the mounds of evidence showing the many, many inconsistencies in the 2020 election. This will never happen with democrats in power.

            They fear the truth.

            We will NEVER know what exactly happened on J6.

            This is because we have a politically biased and one-sided committee serving their political agenda.  Unless you have Republicans able to questions the witnesses and provide their own witnesses you only have one side of the story and a kangaroo court.  It is a democrat disaster. The television ratings show how few American actually believe the J6 committee is worth anything.

            It is biased and one-sided because democrats fear the truth.

            I fear an uprising by the likes of BLM that destroyed billions of dollars of property and killed people. Even CNN admits at least 25 people were killed during the nationwide riots.

            Of course, the democrats won't want this investigated.

            They fear the truth.

      5. IslandBites profile image89
        IslandBitesposted 24 months ago

        A January 6, 2021, rioter pleaded guilty Friday to carrying a loaded firearm on US Capitol grounds and assaulting police officers with one of their own batons during the insurrection.

        Mark Mazza, who told federal investigators he regretted not seeing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the riot and that they would "be here for another reason" if he had, faces a maximum of 20 years for assaulting officers with a dangerous weapon.

        According to the plea agreement, Mazza, 57, carried a revolver loaded with shotgun and hollow-point rounds in a holster under his shirt during the "Stop the Steal" rally and on Capitol grounds that day.

        Mazza lost the weapon on Capitol grounds sometime before walking to the Lower West Terrace tunnel where rioters were battling police officers, according to the plea.
        Inside the tunnel, Mazza held open a door against police officers as "other rioters used flag poles, batons, sticks, and stolen law enforcement shields as weapons to strike at, hit, and try to force their way through" the police line, the plea agreement states.
        He then stole a police officer's baton and used it against the officers guarding the tunnel entrance.

        Mazza originally denied assaulting officers, even saying he assisted them out of the building, despite video footage of him swinging a baton in a battle with police. He drove home to Indiana after the riot with the stolen baton in his possession, according to prosecutors.

        Mazza was recorded in multiple videos saying, "We own this house!"

      6. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
        Kathleen Cochranposted 24 months ago

        It's happened already hundreds of times. Nothing found. It's been in all the papers.

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          PLENTY has been found.  Start with the documentary "2,000 Mules" is has been used to convict people of voter fraud.

          There is mounds of evidence that the main-stream media hasn't acknowledged.  Why? As I said before, democrats are afraid of the truth.

          Simply because you choose to deny something doesn't mean is doesn't exits.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            RMN:  If you would have watched the hearings, you would have known that Bill Barr, Trump's former AG, dismissed 2,000 mules as a flawed premise.

            https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/11046474 … p-election

            Where are the mounds of evidence you are talking about? That is a gross generalization. Give us some specific examples.

            I think you have it backward.  It's not democrats that are afraid of the truth, but you and Trump supporters who are in denial of the truth and  can't accept that Biden won the election fair and square. That's why you want the cross examination.

            You can't accept the fact that Trump took bogus information from a bogus lawyer and almost caused a revolution, because he and his cohorts were in denial about the losing the election. I will even go one step further.  Trump always knew he lost the election, but his ego requires that he win at everything even when he loses.

            What is the republican and Trump supporters end game here? After you prove by cross examination that Trump won the election and Biden didn't, you want Biden to step down as president and that Trump takes his place as president?

            1. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              "Bill Barr, Trump's former AG, dismissed 2,000 mules as a flawed premise."

              Why would anyone care what Bill Barr says about this documentary? Has he said he watched it? He has no idea what he is talking about.  This is common for him.

              Why was the documentary used to convict a person of voter fraud?

              I say there are mounds of evidence because I keep on top of this. Literally thousands of articles speak to this.  Fraud has been identified several states. I'm all for a federal investigation to prove it one way or another.

              democrats won't support this because they are afraid of the truth. 

              I also know the democrats are afraid of the truth because there are no Republicans on the J6 committee. No Republicans can ask questions of witnesses and no Republicans can provide witnesses. It is a one-sided, politically biased committee with no value.

              "After you prove by cross examination that Trump won the election and Biden didn't, you want Biden to step down as president and that Trump takes his place as president?"

              This will never happen because it would damage the entire nation's belief in the electoral system.  It doesn't matter if it's the truth or not.

              It's important to shine the light of truth on the 2020 election so everyone in the country realizes what depths the democrats will sink to in order to win an election.  They obviously don't care about the country or biden and harris would not be in office.

              The truth should also be used to pass laws and put procedures in place to prevent the democrats from doing such a thing again.

              democrats hate the truth.

              1. TheShadowSpecter profile image86
                TheShadowSpecterposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                "It's important to shine the light of truth on the 2020 election so everyone in the country realizes what depths the democrats will sink to in order to win an election.  They obviously don't care about the country or biden and harris would not be in office.

                The truth should also be used to pass laws and put procedures in place to prevent the democrats from doing such a thing again."

                If such a Federal investigation could prove that Donald J. Trump was the true winner of the 2020 American presidential election, then, as a matter of principle, Joe Biden should be disqualified from running for reelection in 2024.  If Biden is not our legitimate president, then he should not be able to reap the benefits of being the incumbent in our next presidential election.  He was never a good leader in the first place.

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "If such a Federal investigation could prove that Donald J. Trump was the true winner of the 2020 American presidential election, then, as a matter of principle, Joe Biden should be disqualified from running for reelection in 2024.  If Biden is not our legitimate president, then he should not be able to reap the benefits of being the incumbent in our next presidential election.  He was never a good leader in the first place."

                  I don't see it happening even if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think the powers that be would permit it. The democrats would be in denial no matter what evidence is presented.

                  I agree...biden has been a nightmare at every aspect of being a president.

      7. profile image73
        KC McGeeposted 24 months ago

        I don't know why they keep calling them Democrats when clearly they are MARXIST

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          KC:  You don't even know what a Marxist is.  You are using some term that you picked up from right wing propaganda and are using it improperly.

          1. profile image73
            KC McGeeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            I know what Marxist is...................scum

            1. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              KC:  Thank you for that reply.  That was extremely intelligent of you.

              1. profile image73
                KC McGeeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I don't care what you think.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                  peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  KC: Ah, but you do, or you wouldn't keep replying.

      8. abwilliams profile image66
        abwilliamsposted 24 months ago

        Straight from the horse's mouth Cred:
        https://youtu.be/rdpIIiBe7Wc

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Fair enough, but this is more my take on this

          https://www.politifact.com/article/2020 … -movement/

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Cred:  You and I posted the same reply to ab.  You posted the link to the article and I posted the text.  If she reads it, it should give her a good understanding what BLM is all about and what Patrisse Cullors meant about "trained marxists." Whether she will believes it or not is another story.

            I find that right wingers are too quick to apply labels to others that they really don't understand what they mean.  They just hear it on right wing propaganda sites and just run with it.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Odd, but it is true that great minds think alike...

              1. abwilliams profile image66
                abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Did y'all even watch the video that I shared? I wouldn't call Cullors a "right-winger", she has done the "labeling" here, not me!
                I am sure that you two have stretched and spun BLM into a version of what you want them to be, somewhere in this maze of commentary that I'll not waste time searching out. But America FINALLY knows better. That's the most important thing.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  I acknowledged in an earlier comment the video. You have to read my comments to Mike to appreciate where I stand with BLM and why.

                  "But America FINALLy knows better?"

                  Your America and my America are clearly two different places. So, that comment cannot have much significance for me.

            2. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              That's rich peoplepower. It reads like you're saying BLM means the good things you claim and not words that people hear from "the horse's mouth"  or the bad things people see in BLM activities.

              However, I think you are right about the Marxist label, most people probably don't understand the true meaning, but even if it is mislabeling, they understand the purpose of the actions ascribed to that label.

              Relative to your closing, that's 'rich' too but is more like the pot calling the kettle black. Ironically, you offer that thought to the choir's most fervent singer.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                The bad things are just sour grapes expressed by Righties that simply wished that it all would go away. Well, it is not going to go away.

                I find the good things to be satisfactory and essential to placing the spotlight on a national and festering problem rather than again just being content to continue hiding dirty laundry in the hamper.

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "The bad things are just sour grapes expressed by Righties that simply wished that it all would go away. "

                  Whoowee, that one's gonna bite you in the butt, even if you think you have a context that would support it.

                  Consider the current direction; BLM and Marxism. Then follow the context; whether BLM is the Marist-driven organization its founders say it is, or a movement greater than the public and visual BLM the nation sees.

                  Within that context, the BLM protests are included.

                  And here you come declaring that the 'Righties' response to seeing BLM's past years' protests and occupations and violence are just "sour grapes"?

                  I probably misread your comment. You were probably thinking of the sour grapes they would have seeing 'their guys' getting busted for doing what your BLM guys did for a whole summer. That would be sour grapes. (and a bit of your hyperbole too ;-)

                  GA

              2. peoplepower73 profile image90
                peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Thanks GA.  I though it was ironic as well.  They are so desperate to justify their version of the song, they will take someone from the same choir who is not singing the choir's song, but who is singing their song.

                Is that a mixed metaphor?

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Beats me, but it's certainly a mixed something.

                  GA

              3. abwilliams profile image66
                abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                GA, I missed this response earlier.
                Well done. Nailed it!

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Candace Owens is a black conservative and has some rather negative things to say about BLM as does every black conservative I've spoken with about it.

                  "CANDACE Owens launched a scathing attack on the Black Lives Matter movement as she backed Breonna Taylor's mother's claims the organization is a "fraud".

                  The Conservative commentator accused the movement of being "racist" and using "dead black people to fund and empower white Democrats."

                  Her comments came after Tamika Palmer, the mother of Breonna Taylor, accused BLM in Louisville of fraud for losing focus on her daughter’s cause.

                  She also bashed Kentucky’s Rep. Attica Scott who continued to push for legislation to ban ‘no-knock’ warrants in the state.

                  “I have never personally dealt with BLM Louisville and personally have found them to be fraud, Attica Scott another fraud,” Palmer wrote on Facebook.

                  On Sunday, author Owens commented on Palmer’s statement in a tweet saying: “BLM is a RACIST organization that uses the faces of dead black people to fund and empower white Democrats.”

                  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14690664/ … ud-racist/

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    And you consider Candice (5th colunnist) Owens to be credible?

                    1. Readmikenow profile image94
                      Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                      I consider her a highly educated, successful and extremely credible. Candace Owens in articulate and intelligent and regularly destroys liberals in debates.

                      She is one of many black conservatives who are far more intelligent and articulate than any upright walking liberal.

                      1. Credence2 profile image77
                        Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                        The only reason either you or AB sings her praises is just because she says what you all want to here, hardly a noteworthy reason to promote some 33 year old well paid rightwing mouthpiece.

            3. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              You do know that BLM has a convicted terrorist on their board named Susan Rosenberg.

              "Susan Lisa Rosenberg (born October 5, 1955) is an American activist, writer, advocate for social justice and prisoners' rights. From the late 1970s into the mid-1980s, Rosenberg was active in the far-left revolutionary May 19th Communist Organization ("M19CO") which, according to a contemporaneous FBI report, "openly advocate[d] the overthrow of the U.S. Government through armed struggle and the use of violence". M19CO provided support to an offshoot of the Black Liberation Army, including in armored truck robberies, and later engaged in bombings of government buildings.

              After living as a fugitive for two years, Rosenberg was arrested in 1984 while in possession of a large cache of explosives and firearms, including automatic weapons. She had also been sought as an accomplice in the 1979 prison escape of Assata Shakur and in the 1981 Brink's robbery that resulted in the deaths of two police officers and a guard, although she was never charged in either case. Convicted after a trial on the weapons and explosives charges, Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001, his final day in office."

              I also guess these trained Marxist enjoy the capitalistic lifestyle and they like to purchase million dollar properties.

              As protests broke out across the country in the name of Black Lives Matter, the group’s co-founder went on a real estate buying binge, snagging four high-end homes for $3.2 million in the US alone, according to property records.

              "Patrisse Khan-Cullors, 37, also eyed property in the Bahamas at an ultra-exclusive resort where Justin Timberlake and Tiger Woods both have homes, The Post has learned. Luxury apartments and townhouses at the beachfront Albany resort outside Nassau are priced between $5 million and $20 million, according to a local agent.

              The self-described Marxist last month purchased a $1.4 million home on a secluded road a short drive from Malibu in Los Angeles, according to a report. The 2,370-square-foot property features “soaring ceilings, skylights and plenty of windows” with canyon views. The Topanga Canyon homestead, which includes two houses on a quarter-acre, is just one of three homes Khan-Cullors owns in the Los Angeles area, public records show.

              Some fellow activists were taken aback by the real estate revelations.

              Hawk Newsome, the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, which is not affiliated with Khan-Cullors’ Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, called for “an independent investigation” to find out how the global network spends its money."

              https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-bl … ing-binge/

              They're not doing too well right now.

              "Black Lives Matter is imploding in scandal — a lesson about causes deemed beyond question

              “It appears that the house of cards may be falling,” says Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the legal entity that snarfs up most cash donated to the BLM movement. Indeed, “this happens eventually with nearly every scam, scheme or illegal enterprise.”

              It’s not just Indiana: The states of Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia have all revoked BLMNGF’s charitable registration, while California and Washington are threatening to hold the nonprofit’s officers personally liable for its lack of financial transparency.

              The outfit has failed to file taxes for 2020, the year it raised tens of millions after George Floyd’s death at police hands and the rioting and protests that followed. It has no official leader overseeing its $60 million war chest after its co-founder resigned in May.

              And that co-founder, Patrisse Cullors-Khan, is tied to several other fundraising organizations whose finances raise “potential red flags,” New York magazine reports. Meanwhile, she’s been on a personal real estate buying spree, while BLM funds transferred to a Canadian nonprofit run by her spouse have gone for other dubious purchases.

              Vast giving by deep-pocketed donors linked to Facebook, Twitter and Netflix — as well as by corporations rushing to show the “right” political consciousness — may have funded rank peculation by those entrusted with the funds.

              In the end, Black Lives Matter is turning into an oft-told tale: Big piles of cash wrapped in moral fervor invite corruption. And the more the cause is deemed beyond questioning, the faster the scammers move in."

              https://nypost.com/2022/02/06/black-liv … -question/

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I hear you, Mike and GA, this reply is to you as well
                -----
                Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and inequality experienced by black people. When its supporters come together, they do so primarily to protest incidents of police brutality and racially motivated violence against black people...
                ---
                This definition would indicate that there is no real organizational structure and no real leader.

                I am NOT a Marxist, Communist pinko or any other description in the Rightwinger's lexicon.

                There were about 23 million people involved in protests in 2020 under the BLM banner sparked by the murder of George Floyd, I hardly think that all of these people were Marxists or even subscribed to Marxism. The overwhelming majority of protests were peaceful, despite all the misinformation from the Tidy Righties.

                For me, I cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bath water. This movement brought to the forefront the disadvantageous inequities in law enforcement and the judicial systems for blacks and minorities relative to whites, for which there is otherwise no substantive reason for the disparities. The organization brought these issues to the national stage as no other has ever. I certainly do not trust "your system" the establishment to bring these truths to the forefront of national debate. After all, they never have and the abuses continued and were just swept under the rug. I cannot afford to lose an association that brings that all to light, no matter what you may call it.

                I will take what is good and leave the rest on the table. It is decentralized and because I support much of what they do does not mean I am a Communist, is that ok with you guys? I don't see the threat of a up coming Communist Revolution from BLM any time soon, do you?

                To get the attention on the topic and move this society in the proper direction, right now, they are the only game in town. I certainly can march with them in protest without being or becoming a Marxist.

                Perhaps, they are not doing well and there are plenty of questions regarding fiduciary matters amongst them. But without them, much of the attempt to correct disparities in law enforcement and criminal justice would still be ignored to this day.

                The real corruption is what has been going on for so long unnoticed and uncorrected prior to their intervention.

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  What has BLM really accomplished?

                  1. They inspired violent protests in cities across the country causing billions of dollars' worth of damage and over 25 deaths.

                  2. Because of their defund the police efforts, crime has risen dramatically in several cites. Black Americans are now being murdered at a rate that has never been seen before.

                  "Massive increase in Black Americans murdered was result of defund police movement: experts"

                  https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-americ … e-movement

                  If the goal of BLM is to help the black community, the only thing it has really accomplished is a huge increase in violence and death in the black community.

                  With the history and harm caused by BLM...how could anyone trust this organization to do anything but destroy the black community?

                  1. profile image73
                    KC McGeeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Again, they are a bunch of TERRORIST.