Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?

[Warp12]

Thanks much for the clarification.

However, if the Republicans actually wanted to be seated on the January 6 Commission, then they could have easily done so.

That has been discussed, too. But, it has no bearing on determining whether or not what we have now is a very lopsided committee, as far as party representation.

It would be hard to argue that this wasn't brought about, to a large extent, by Republican actions. And dumb ones at that. But for some here to crow about how bipartisan it is...well, that is just ridiculous.

 

[wareyin]

That has been discussed, too. But, it has no bearing on determining whether or not what we have now is a very lopsided committee, as far as party representation.

It would be hard to argue that this wasn't brought about, to a large extent, by Republican actions. And dumb ones at that. But for some here to crow about how bipartisan it is...well, that is just ridiculous.

Among the many, many questions you have been dodging with regard to your "highly partisan" claim, I have repeatedly asked you to explain how under your own personal definition one could have a committee that isn't partisan.


By the way, do you think no one here notices how you drift between "partisan" (which as you are using is merely mostly wrong by the dictionary definition) and "highly partisan" (which as you are using is completely, utterly wrong)?

 

[Warp12]

Among the many, many questions you have been dodging with regard to your "highly partisan" claim, I have repeatedly asked you to explain how under your own personal definition one could have a committee that isn't partisan.


By the way, do you think no one here notices how you drift between "partisan" (which as you are using is merely mostly wrong by the dictionary definition) and "highly partisan" (which as you are using is completely, utterly wrong)?

Pointless and silly question.

It is as though a panel with a 99/1 split is the same as a panel with 60/40 split, right??

Partisan/highly partisan. With a 7/2 split...and the two Republicans being biased and rebuked by their party...you tell me which it is. Does it matter to anyone? They mostly deny any partisanship whatsoever, anyway.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Pelosi’s Court: How the Jan. 6 committee undermined its own legitimacy
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...an-6-committee-undermined-its-own-legitimacy/





And some people pretend that it is an outlandish observation, that the committee is partisan. Just admit it, and stand steady on your belief in the results. That is a lot more credible, imo.

You do realize that the Commission is not a Court, right?

 

[Warp12]

You do realize that the Commission is not a Court, right?

You do realize that I didn't write or title the article, right?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You do realize that I didn't write or title the article, right?

But you endorsed it by posting it without disclaimers, instead using it as an argument why partisanship is bad.

Now you have the chance: Do you actually think that the January 6th commission needs to be held to the standards of a a Court of Law, despite being nothing of the sort?

 

[wareyin]

Pointless and silly question.

How so? If your complaint is that it is "highly partisan" when the views included run the gamut of those in Congress, then the fact that you can't even imagine the makeup of a committee that you wouldn't call "highly partisan" says that your complaint is spurious.

It is as though a panel with a 99/1 split is the same as a panel with 60/40 split, right??

Are you saying that a committee that had a 60/40 split would fit the peculiar definition of "non-partisan" that you're using?

Partisan/highly partisan. With a 7/2 split...and the two Republicans being biased and rebuked by their party...you tell me which it is. Does it matter to anyone? They mostly deny any partisanship whatsoever, anyway.

I asked you before what the Republicans on the committee were rebuked for. You didn't answer. Something tells me that you know the answer, but refuse to give it because it destroys your premise.

 

[Warp12]

Are you saying that a committee that had a 60/40 split would fit the peculiar definition of "non-partisan" that you're using?

Quite frankly, I find these questions preposterous. As though my definition of "non-partisan" is absurdly contrived. We all know how these matters are generally viewed...no one looks at a politically-influenced panel with a 7-2 split and exclaims, "how wonderfully bipartisan!".

Golly, I don't know...would a 5/4 panel seem less biased than a 7/2 panel with a couple of party rejects? I don't know. Let me ponder that for a day or two. It is complex.

 

[wareyin]

Quite frankly, I find these questions preposterous. As though my definition of "non-partisan" is absurdly contrived. We all know how these matters are generally viewed...no one looks at a politically-influenced panel with a 7-2 split and exclaims, "how wonderfully bipartisan!".

Golly, I don't know...would a 5/4 panel seem less biased than a 7/2 panel with a couple of party rejects? I don't know. Let me ponder that for a day or two. It is complex.

Remember, I've already pointed out that jumping between a (mostly incorrect) claim of "partisan" to a (completely incorrect) claim of "highly partisan" is a tactic that isn't fooling anyone.

Remember, as well, that we all know exactly what caused the party to reject the only Republicans who didn't act in a partisan manner here. Your "no true Scotsman" gambit fails, again.

I'm sure you find questions which, if you answered them, would show your complaints to be merely smokescreen defenses for Trump and the GOP to be preposterous. Or, well, no, I don't believe that you really do find them preposterous, I believe that you think if you act like an affronted TV show caricature of a lawyer then no one will notice your inability to debate honestly on this matter.

 

[Warp12]

This Republican owns up to the party failure, and the resulting partisan composition of the committee. Is he wrong?

Bacon: Republicans made a 'mistake' to oppose creating bipartisan Jan. 6 commission
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pr...ting-bipartisan-jan-6-commission-141965381934

 

[wareyin]

This Republican owns up to the party failure, and the resulting partisan composition of the committee. Is he wrong?

Bacon: Republicans made a 'mistake' to oppose creating bipartisan Jan. 6 commission
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pr...ting-bipartisan-jan-6-commission-141965381934

His framing is wrong. He starts out by claiming 'no new info" from the first hearing, yet points out new information that he got from the hearing that he was interested in. That dishonesty basically continues, with complaints about the optics of the hearing (teleprompters! gasp!) to dodge the issues.

 

[Warp12]

His framing is wrong. He starts out by claiming 'no new info" from the first hearing, yet points out new information that he got from the hearing that he was interested in. That dishonesty basically continues, with complaints about the optics of the hearing (teleprompters! gasp!) to dodge the issues.

I am asking, is he wrong about Republicans making a mistake by opposing a bipartisan committee?

 

[plague311]

This was the absolute ******* dumbest thread I've read on this forum in a long, long time. Warp12 leading people by the nose for 3 pages while they continue to be Bobbed by some ridiculous definition of "partisan".

I mean, seriously. He's dodged every ******* question and doesn't even pretend to answer them, but there you guys go again. Responding in full just for him to give you some garbage, snarky retort that then triggers another half a page.

I'm ******* dumber for having read this thread. I'm embarrassed that it wasn't dead on arrival.

 

[wareyin]

I am asking, is he wrong about Republicans making a mistake by opposing a bipartisan committee?

Since we actually currently have a bipartisan committee, we got there in the end. Sure, Republicans were wrong to be so highly partisan^* about trying to tank the investigation. Of course, Republicans putting their own tribe above the law or the country means it's another day that ends in "y".






^*Note for Warp12: this is the correct usage of partisan per the dictionary definition:

strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's like someone demanding a "civil debate" where you have to prove water is wet or fire is hot, you can't actually do it without them still winning because the discussion is just... that... stupid.

 

[Warp12]

It's like someone demanding a "civil debate" where you have to prove water is wet or fire is hot

...or how a 7/2 political bias indicates a lopsided panel. It is equally preposterous to have to elaborate upon any of the three topics.

 

[wareyin]

It's like someone demanding a "civil debate" where you have to prove water is wet or fire is hot, you can't actually do it with them still winning because the discussion is just... that... stupid.

Well, this is supposed to be a place for debate, so there is that. If we just ignore stupid people who make stupid claims, this place has no more reason to exist.

This was the absolute ******* dumbest thread I've read on this forum in a long, long time. Warp12 leading people by the nose for 3 pages while they continue to be Bobbed by some ridiculous definition of "partisan".

I mean, seriously. He's dodged every ******* question and doesn't even pretend to answer them, but there you guys go again. Responding in full just for him to give you some garbage, snarky retort that then triggers another half a page.

I'm ******* dumber for having read this thread. I'm embarrassed that it wasn't dead on arrival.

I always appreciate people who post in a thread claiming that nobody should post in the thread. Sorry you were forced to read through 3 whole pages against your will and all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

...or how a 7/2 political bias indicates a lopsided panel. All three are equally preposterous topics to have to elaborate upon.

How many Nazis should have been on the Nuremburg Trials?

 

[wareyin]

...or how a 7/2 political bias indicates a lopsided panel. All three are equally preposterous topics to have to elaborate upon.

Maybe if you had chosen "lopsided" as your complaint, you would have a point here.

 

[Crossbow]

...or how a 7/2 political bias indicates a lopsided panel. It is equally preposterous to have to elaborate upon any of the three topics.

Well, since most of the House Republicans were too stupid, too idiotic, too much of a liar, and too much of being a Trump lap dog, to actually help out on the January 6 Commission, then a 7/2 makeup of the January 6 Commission is the best that could be done.

And if the Republicans do not like the 7/2 makeup now, then that is too bad for them because they had an excellent opportunity to get involved about 18 months ago, but they thoughtlessly squandered that opportunity.

So now that some of the Commission work is being broadcast on national TV, then it is simply too late for these foolish Republicans to fret about the 7/2 makeup today.