Split Thread Is the Jan 6th committee too partisan?

[wareyin]

But, I'm not outraged. I have said repeatedly that I am not accusing the committee of any wrongdoing, and that we should judge them on their results.

If you understood the word "partisan", or read any of the definitions so many of us have helpfully provided you with, you would see that you are in fact accusing the committee of wrongdoing.

 

[Warp12]

If you understood the word "partisan", or read any of the definitions so many of us have helpfully provided you with, you would see that you are in fact accusing the committee of wrongdoing.

Please refer to my earlier post:

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!".

You might as well keep with your "textbook meanings" angle, continue to ignore the common understanding of the term politically, and celebrate a victory of semantics. Clearly I can't reach you.

 

[Crossbow]

Well, that's the thing...I'm not really vexed about it. I actually find it kind of amusing that so many can't just admit that it is a partisan committee. I would just say, "Yeah, we've got a highly partisan committee, and that's because of dumbass Republicans. Let me know when you see a problem with the actions or results."

But nope. Instead we have to endure people claiming things like, "it is a highly lopsided committee, but it isn't partisan!". It is mind-boggling. I have constantly suggested that I have seen no wrongdoing thus far, and that we should judge the panel on the results.

And just in case you didn't know...this is the "controversial" comment I made that started all of this, on the first night of the hearings:




I mean, hardly a comment teeming with outrage.

Well then ...

If this is the case, then I have to agree with what 'wareyin' just said.

Or to put it another way, I belive that you are using the work 'partisan" incorrectly.

While it is true that the Commission does have more Democrats than Republicans. However, no one has established that the Commission is acting in a prejudicial or partisan manner.

In fact, I would say that everything that I have seen shows that the work of the Commission has been quite dispassionate and quite non-partisan.

 

[Warp12]

While it is true that the Commission does have more Democrats than Republicans. However, no one has established that the Commission is acting in a prejudicial or partisan manner.

Politicians have a stated or unstated duty to support the goals of their party, in general. And one of the goals of any political party is to undermine and discredit the other. Some pretend this isn't true, of course.

Therefore, the partisanship is baked into the party affiliation, the vast majority of the time.

And as I have said before, do you really think the Dems don't have a goal to exploit/manipulate this for political gain? Why would they choose not to? That would be incredibly stupid on their part.

But still, I say judge the quality of the information/results and ignore the political theater.

 

[wareyin]

Please refer to my earlier post:




You might as well keep with your "textbook meanings" angle, continue to ignore the common understanding of the term politically, and celebrate a victory of semantics. Clearly I can't reach you.

You were wrong the first time you whined that we should use your incorrect definition, and you are wrong now. Providing evidence that you don't understand the word you are using or what it means is not a victory of semantics. You don't get to "heads I win, tails you lose" by being wrong but declaring that anyone showing that you are wrong means you're actually right.

 

[wareyin]

But still, I say judge the quality of the information/results and ignore the political theater.

You've already claimed that the information/results will be wrong because the people investigating are "highly partisan". Before the information/results were even beginning to be released, even.

 

[Warp12]

You've already claimed that the information/results will be wrong because the people investigating are "highly partisan". Before the information/results were even beginning to be released, even.

I am not claiming that at all. I have reasonable concerns, but as I have said what seems like 10x now...let us judge the results and weigh them on their own merit.

I have seen no indications of wrongdoing, thus far. I have indicated this multiple times, as well.

 

[Crossbow]

Politicians have a stated or unstated duty to support the goals of their party, in general. And one of the goals of any political party is to undermine and discredit the other. Some pretend this isn't true, of course.

The partisanship is baked into the party affiliation, the vast majority of the time.

And as I have said before, do you really think the Dems don't have a goal to exploit this for political gain? Why would they choose not to? That would be incredibly stupid on their part.

But still, I say judge the quality of the information/results and ignore the political theater.

I am not sure what you are talking about now.

But in any event, if you can show me where the January 6 Commission is being partisan, then please show your data.

Because I have looked for such data, and I never found any such data.

 

[wareyin]

I am not claiming that at all. I have reasonable concerns, but as I have said what seems like 10x now...let us judge the results and weigh them on their own merit.

I have seen no indications of wrongdoing, thus far. I have indicated this multiple times, as well.

So...you've seen no evidence that the committee was partisan, much less highly partisan? Then why do you keep on making the accusation?

 

[Warp12]

So...you've seen no evidence that the committee was partisan, much less highly partisan? Then why do you keep on making the accusation?

My position has been clearly explained...repeatedly, recently, and in some cases directly to you, why this is a very safe assumption. I'm growing weary of explaining how water is wet, as another member referenced.

Politicians have a stated or unstated duty to support the goals of their party, in general. And one of the goals of any political party is to undermine and discredit the other. Some pretend this isn't true, of course.

Therefore, the partisanship is baked into the party affiliation, the vast majority of the time.

And as I have said before, do you really think the Dems don't have a goal to exploit/manipulate this for political gain? Why would they choose not to? That would be incredibly stupid on their part.

But still, I say judge the quality of the information/results and ignore the political theater.

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!".

"The panel may be politically lopsided (biased), but it isn't partisan, sir!"

This battle of semantics is amusing. But if that is how you want to claim victory, I think it just speaks to the underlying truth of what I have said.

 

[wareyin]

My position has been clearly explained...repeatedly, recently, and in some cases directly to you, why this is a very safe assumption. I'm growing weary of explaining how water is wet, as another member referenced.

Ok, you can repeat your wrong claims all you want (obviously), but making them over and over again doesn't make them right. "Highly partisan" does not mean biased. "Highly partisan" does not mean lopsided. "Highly partisan" does not mean supporting the goals of one's party in general.

When you accuse the committee of being "highly partisan", you are making a specific accusation with regard to their actions. Actions which you were ignorant of when you first made the accusation, and which have been demonstrated by the hearing to be not at all those you claimed.

Your lies are not that water is wet.

 

[Warp12]

Ok, you can repeat your wrong claims all you want (obviously), but making them over and over again doesn't make them right. "Highly partisan" does not mean biased. "Highly partisan" does not mean lopsided. "Highly partisan" does not mean supporting the goals of one's party in general.

Back to your textbook definitions again?

Partisan can mean limited to one party and the word is also often used to signify a highly lopsided vote, for example. If a vote passes with 50 Dems and 2 Republicans, some would call that "bipartisan" support. Then everyone else would laugh and roll their eyes at how the word was stretched to the limit.

And then some remaining hero of bipartisanship might argue the point for hours, pointing out the semantic nuances.

 

[wareyin]

Back to your textbook definitions again?

Partisan can mean limited to one party and the word is also often used to signify a highly lopsided vote, for example. If a vote passes with 50 Dems and 2 Republicans, some would call that "bipartisan" support. Then everyone else would laugh and roll their eyes at how the word was stretched to the limit.

And then some remaining hero of bipartisanship might argue the point for hours, pointing out the semantic nuances.

How dare people who think words have meaning show you you're wrong, huh? Sorry, Humpty Dumpty, but when you use a word it doesn't mean just what you choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

 

[Warp12]

How dare people who think words have meaning show you you're wrong, huh? Sorry, Humpty Dumpty, but when you use a word it doesn't mean just what you choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

Words do have meaning. Sometimes more than one.

A partisan is a committed member of a political party or army. In multi-party systems, the term is used for persons who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with political opponents

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(politics)

If something is prejudicial towards a particular point of view, you can call it partisan. You'll often hear of the partisan politics in the U.S.— since politicians seem to be completely devoted to the agendas of their own parties.

Partisan can be used to describe rabid supporters of any person or activity. In American English, however, it is most often used to refer to politics and the American two-party system of Democrats and Republicans.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/partisan

 

[mgidm86]

It isn't partisan. Republicans just don't want the truth to come out. Why is this so hard for some to see?

Another way of phrasing the thread title would be: "Why don't the Republicans care what happened on Jan 6?"

The "why is it partisan" can be answered in one sentence, and has been many times. This thread is ******** yet here we are again. I guess that's okay.

So, I'll bite:

Where is the Republican independent investigation into Jan 6? They seemed okay with it for Benghazi.

Don't Republican voters wonder why their leaders are not willing to investigate a direct attack on our government on our own soil, and one of the biggest news events of this century?

My answer: They don't want the truth to come out. Duh!

That is also the answer to the thread title.

What other reason could there be?

Another great thread! Standing ovation, baby! Really putting the S in ISF boy lemme tell ya!

This question has been answered dozens of times in the original thread yet we now have a new thread because one attention-seeking poster doesn't get it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Thank God we're keeping free speech alive with such a useful civil debate!

Next we can have a discussion about whether hats exist or not.

 

[bruto]

It isn't partisan. Republicans just don't want the truth to come out. Why is this so hard for some to see?

Another way of phrasing the thread title would be: "Why don't the Republicans care what happened on Jan 6?"

The "why is it partisan" can be answered in one sentence, and has been many times. This thread is ******** yet here we are again. I guess that's okay.

So, I'll bite:

Where is the Republican independent investigation into Jan 6? They seemed okay with it for Benghazi.

Don't Republican voters wonder why their leaders are not willing to investigate a direct attack on our government on our own soil, and one of the biggest news events of this century?

My answer: They don't want the truth to come out. Duh!

That is also the answer to the thread title.

What other reason could there be?

Another great thread! Standing ovation, baby! Really putting the S in ISF boy lemme tell ya!

This question has been answered dozens of times in the original thread yet we now have a new thread because one attention-seeking poster doesn't get it.

It does seem pretty repetitive, but since it is I'll repeat what I've been saying again and again in a slightly different way.

Is the committee partisan? Yes and no. It is, obviously, partisan in its makeup, because of the refusal of most Republicans to join it. Is it partisan in style? Probably, since it would be ridiculous to presume that even honest and disinterested people will not do their best to look good and sound good and suggest that their party exemplifies what is good. Is it partisan in its activity? No. unless you believe reality and truth are partisan, or if you can demonstrate that its mission of determining the truth is not being done. If a committee whose object is to find the truth finds the truth, then the party makeup of the membership is irrelevant, because its action is not partisan, because truth should not be partisan, and any honest member of any party would accomplish the same results.

Is the presumed partisanship of the committee worth thinking about in relation to the job being done? I say no.

 

[Hellbound]

Next we can have a discussion about whether hats exist or not.

There are no hats. Only covers.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Aha! I wondered when the goalpost move was going to arrive. You are increasingly realising that the makeup of the committee doesn't match the term "partisan" so now you are going to call it "very lopsided". Fair enough, I agree. It is lopsided, and perhaps that is the term you should have used to begin with.

Of course, being lopsided has no impact on the truth and legitimacy of the facts and evidence being presented, nor will it alter the conclusions they will come to.

It would be hard to argue that this wasn't brought about, to a large extent, by Republican actions. And dumb ones at that.

Truly a massive understatement. The fact that his committee exists, rather than what should have happened, a Jan 6 Commission, is only and entirely the fault of Republicans, in particular, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy... NO-ONE ELSE!!

They objected to a proposal to established a Jan 6 Commission in the style of the 9/11 Commission, a panel that would have been divided equally between Republican party and Democratic party appointees. This results in the Democrats forming this House Select committee. Then, when asked to nominate five Republicans to join Liz Cheney on the committee (Adam Kinzinger had not already volunteered at that time) he deliberately nominated three who he KNEW were implicated in January 6 plot to overturn the election (Jim Banks, Jim Jordan and Troy Nehls) all of whom were likely to ba called to testify. So when Nancy Pelosi rightly rejected those three, McCarty spat his dummy out, and withdrew all of them.

But for some here to crow about how bipartisan it is...well, that is just ridiculous.

Crowing? Really" Lets have a look at the actual accepted definition of "bipartsan" shall we?

Bipartisan: Definition
of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
​

Please note, this committee involves members of two parties! Please also note the complete absence of any reference to balance or that the numbers of representatives of the two parties must be equal.

- When a House or Senate bill is proposed from members of both parties, regardless of how many members of each party propose that bill, it is said to be bipartisan.

- When legislation is passed by the House or Senate with votes from both parties, even though it might be only a few from one of the sides, that legislation is said to be bipartisan.

- All of the House and Senate permanent committees such as Judiciary and Intelligence, are described as bipartisan committees.

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is one that "involves members of two parties", ergo, it is bipartisan by the very definition of that word.

This is simply an irrefutable fact.

 

[wareyin]

Words do have meaning. Sometimes more than one.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(politics)


https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/partisan

Your first definition clearly does not apply to the committee as no party policies are in play here. Further, the refusal to compromise or work together is also shown to be false by...the committee itself being made up of far right, right, center, and left politicians.

Your second definition also fails because it isn't prejudicial towards any point of view (other than, you know, breaking the law is bad) nor is it being driven by the agenda of either party.

So we're back to you dishonestly using words to mean whatever you want them to mean.