Republicans lied about the need for a Jan. 6 commission

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jan 25, 2022.

  1. Phyxius

    Phyxius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    15,965
    Likes Received:
    21,593
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I'm saying that you and objective reality really need to patch up your differences. beatinoff_zps3b07b48c (1).gif
     
  2. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,016
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That makes no sense. Are you sure you have the first idea about what you're talking about?
     
  3. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, the old 'everyone else is, too ' argument.

    Nice trick, but, no.
     
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a reasonable assumption, given Republicans history of deception and disingenuousness.

    ‘No way’ Trump should concede, Jordan said as he helped plan the challenge to Biden’s victory.
    Mr. Jordan said in December that there was “no way” Mr. Trump should concede the election, even after the Electoral College certified Mr. Biden’s victory.

    told CNN in December, adding: “We should still try to figure out exactly what took place here. And as I said, that includes, I think, debates on the House floor — potentially on Jan. 6.”

    Later that month, he participated in a meeting at the White House, where Republican lawmakers discussed plans with Mr. Trump’s team to use the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 to challenge the election outcome.

    ‘There was something wrong with this election’: Jordan continued to suggest Biden’s victory was illegitimate.
    “Americans instinctively know there was something wrong with this election,” Mr. Jordan said, arguing for invalidating electoral votes for Mr. Biden on Jan. 6. “During the campaign, Vice President Biden would do an event and he’d get 50 people at the event. President Trump at just one rally gets 50,000 people.”
     
  5. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bull crap. And you know it. The only reason you're saying its "reasonable" now is because you have the benefit of it having happened. And to blame it on the bold completely ignores Democrats own history of deception and disingenuousness.

    And you can quote Jordan all that you want. Is what he did illegal? No.
     
  6. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Voting for impeachment was the correct action.

    Anyone who can't see Trump's abuse of power is blind and unworthy of the committee.
     
  7. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have more evidence for my views than you have for yours.
     
  8. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,747
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So you are good with you ""being wrong all the time""...

    Cheap talk and no rebuttal ... keep it up.
     
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if you want to get into a 'deception and disingenuousness' pissing contest, especially in the White House, republicans are going to win that one, hands down.

    And why stop there, let's up the ante to crimes committed by WH entourage, comparing dems to repubs in the WH:

    indictments.jpg

    I should think finding trustable republicans is rare, hence only two on the 1/6 committee.
     
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, then proceed to prove "almost all politicians"

    We can safely presume that is about 99 out of 100 politicians, on the average.

    I will await your diligently prepared and studied evidence of that point.
     
  11. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They're politicians the belief that you're smart enough to micromanage the entire economy of the United States of America is a narcicistic belief in and of itself.
     
  12. PPark66

    PPark66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,416
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The judge in Eastman case ruled quite clearly as have others that the Committee is legitimate in all shapes and forms.

    I suppose these bad faith arguments keep coming to delay the inevitable. The judge in the Eastman case put the defendant on an expedited daily schedule to turn over documents: review and turnover documents daily to the committee.

    It appears they’re getting really short with these folks. No more messing around.
     
    Hey Now and Patricio Da Silva like this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry I don't post gibberish. Sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek, perhaps when warranted but never gibberish. My post was straight up common sense. Why on earth would you expect the Executive branch to investigate a crime perpetrated by the Chief Executive. Does conflict of interest mean anything to you?

    Nonsense, Congress does not investigate for the purpose of "looking for a crime". In this case, the crime(s) (of 1/6) have already been committed, against Congress in particular. And who was the chief instigator of the crimes perpetrated on 1/6? The Chief Executive of course. Congress has a lengthy history of conducting investigations of the Executive. Impeachment for one, cannot be conducted without a proper Congressional investigation. Congress has also investigated CIA torture (a war crime) as another example. The CIA of course is part of the Executive. At the end of the day (since you asked me why) it doesn't matter what you or I believe, IMO all 3 branches of the US government have operated constitutionally and unconstitutionally as the wind blows. And all 3 branches have seized and abrogated powers not granted to them by the Constitution. IMO the worst (and most dangerous) offender is the Judiciary when it granted itself the power to "interpret" the Constitution in Marbury vs Madison (1803). That power was never granted to the Judiciary anywhere within Article III (or anywhere else in the Constitution) and clearly violates the 10th Amendment.

    Then don't ask me any questions you can't answer yourself. You're welcome for the lesson though.

    No, the primary mandated job of the Executive branch is to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution within the powers granted to it under Article II. Fomenting an attempted coup does not fall within the scope of that job.

    I'm not liberal, conservative, left, right or in between, I'm just Bob and I don't "spin". I'm also not your friend. I have no clue who you are nor do I care. For me you're just someone I'm having a discussion with who also just happens to be a lockstep Trump disciple. The same guy who fomented an attempted coup.
     
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Vague.

    Stil waiting.
     
  15. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rubes that believe in the "insurrection" have been suckered into believing such nonsense. It is a myth.
     
  16. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Vague? I don't think that word means what you think it does.
     
  17. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,075
    Likes Received:
    13,533
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lawyers and plaintiffs using the to obstruct justice, hence, the rule of law. Trump has excelled at this. Judge's should expedite many more of this cases when they see clearly that it's simple stall tactics.
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, let's review the conversation.

    It began with my statement:

    I wouldn't call Trump a psychopath, but there is plenty of evidence he is a narcissistic sociopath.

    You replied

    Same would be true of half the government and almost all politicians

    For the sake of time, I skipped the 'half the government' part, and I then asked you for evidence of 'almost all politicians' ,which it would be reasonable to assume 99% of all politicians, since you put it at 'almost' and your reply was:

    They're politicians the belief that you're smart enough to micromanage the entire economy of the United States of America is a narcicistic belief in and of itself.

    My answer was that it is a vague statement

    Your reply challenged whether or not it was a vague statement.

    But, vague isn't important, what is important is the veracity of your reply.

    so, then, let's take a look at what you wrote.

    Your so-called 'proof' is predicated on two assumptions.

    To assert 'they're politicians and by virtue of their being a 'politician' they believe they are smart enough to micromanage the entire economy of the united states, and that this equals narcissistic sociopathy

    Your 'proof' only went to narcissism, not sociopathy, so your answer didn't comply with my request for proof.
    But, for the sake of argument, I will assume you meant 'narcissistic sociopathy', my original description of Trump.

    The veracity of your alleged 'proof' rises or falls on the assumption that politicians, 'almost all politicians', are trying to micromanage the entire economy of the united states, AND that this equals narcissistic sociopathy.

    That's two assumptions.

    1. That almost all politicians are trying to micromanage the US economoy.
    2. That doing so equals narcissistic sociopathy.

    By virtue of these assumptions, you have yet to provide proof that almost all politicians are narcissistic sociopaths, as you have originally claimed.

    So, now you have to prove that almost all politicians are trying to micromanage the US economy.

    And then you have to prove that doing so equals narcissistic sociopathy.

    Because, the one thing you must certainly haven't done, is prove that 'almost all politicians are narcissistic sociopaths'.

    I am, therefore, still waiting.







    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2022
  19. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And your sole proof that Trump is a sociopath is that he won't take crap from leftist net work broad casters. I realize that after 60 years of so called conservative leaders taking what ever crap left-wingers threw at them that a republican throwing crap back and more effectively into the bargain must have come as something of a shock but get used to it the days of Republicans taking whatever calumny leftist want to fling as though it were deserved is over.

    In other words I didn't respond pond to the sociopath part because it's horse crap.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2022
    popscott likes this.
  20. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can't know what I have for proof, you didn't ask nor did I offer it, but I will, if you do ask, your sophomoric cheap shots aside.
    No, if you were someone who understands the proper method of debate, that would be the question you would have asked me, for proof, or to back up my claim in some serious way, or challenge it, because serious debaters do not make assumptions about the claims of their opponents, they ask for proof or they provide a logical counter argument, which you did not do.

    Which is precisely why I asked you for proof of your claims, of which you have utterly failed to do.

    But, I could easily provide proof of my claim, had you asked. I'm sure you would reject it, as you would reject any offering by your opponent, which is to say you would not engage, you would just reject it without substantiation of your rejection, but that doesn't negate the FACT it is proof or substantiation more than just a vacuous allegation. In the meantime, let's use the term 'substantiate to a reasonable degree'.

    No, of course, I'm making some assumptions about how you would react, but based on what I'm seeing from you thus far, it's a fair assessment, but you are free to prove me wrong.

    If you can.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2022
  21. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude I've dealt with your notion of what constitutes proof before. This is a long way from our first dance.
     
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You could try offering it, and you most certainly have not.

    The reason you can't because your statement is flawed, and impossible to prove.

    But, of course, apparently you didn't know that. That's why I asked for proof, to see how you'd handle it.

    hah!
     
  23. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I gave proof of the portion that was actually provable to any extent. Meanwhile your proof of Trump's supposed consists of three things state by a bunch of left wing quack psychologist whose opinions are largely founded on the fact that when verbally attacked he responds in kind, the fact that he rejected standard diplomatic cant in the Middle East which has brought nothing but death and destruction for 70 years and last but scarcely least the fact that he isn't a Democrat.
     
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,232
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, your statements cannot be substantiated because they are egregious generalities and possess flawed premises.


    No, my contention is established by 27 psychiatrists, forensic psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals who wrote a thorough, detailed, forensic level report in the book entitled "The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump".

    Your rebuttals have been rife with pseudo debate tricks. See below, for more information on 'non arguments'.


    patricio3dx.jpg
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,574
    Likes Received:
    16,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly as I said and it's all quackery and BS.
     

Share This Page