• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

johnny karate said:
Actually, facts do matter. You should try using them now and again, instead of just repeating right wing propaganda.

Democrats have wanted a fair and impartial investigation from the beginning. That's why they initially proposed an independent committee, when they were under no obligation to do so.

Republicans, naturally, blocked this effort. And now they caterwaul about the committee being "politically motivated" when in fact, it's their obstructionism that made it political.

Democrats are acting good faith. Republicans - and the brain-dead cultists who parrot their lies on message boards - are not.
Click to expand...

As I say, at least we are in agreement that the committee is highly partisan.
 
johnny karate said:
Actually, facts do matter. You should try using them now and again, instead of just repeating right wing propaganda.

Democrats have wanted a fair and impartial investigation from the beginning. That's why they initially proposed an independent committee, when they were under no obligation to do so.

Republicans, naturally, blocked this effort. And now they caterwaul about the committee being "politically motivated" when in fact, it's their obstructionism that made it political.

Democrats are acting good faith. Republicans - and the brain-dead cultists who parrot their lies on message boards - are not.
Click to expand...

This ^.

What we have is a party that refused to participate in a bi-partisan investigation, then proposed two highly vocal Trump supporters, then got all miffed and self-righteous when they were rejected and started screaming what a partisan investigation it was. Poor babies.
 
Stacyhs said:
This ^.

What we have is a party that refused to participate in a bi-partisan investigation, then proposed two highly vocal Trump supporters, then got all miffed and self-righteous when they were rejected and started screaming what a partisan investigation it was. Poor babies.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps a watershed moment, with two vocal Dems admitting the highly partisan nature of this committee...in agreement with me.

Perhaps my opinion of the Dem position on this forum as being idiotic is misplaced.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, at least we are in agreement. It is a highly partisan committee.

Blame it on whoever you want. It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Most of the Republican side refuses to do the basic job of holding Trump accountable.

Because of this, the Jan 6 committee is filled with mostly Democrats. You're somehow screeching "PARTISAN! OUARNCUWEINRYW!" like it means anything, like it's some unwarranted hit job against Trump. He did something wrong, he just happens to be on the other side, but that side refuses to do anything, so this side has to. Get over it.
 
Venom said:
Most of the Republican side refuses to do the basic job of holding Trump accountable.

Because of this, the Jan 6 committee is filled with mostly Democrats. You're somehow screeching "PARTISAN! OUARNCUWEINRYW!" like it means anything, like it's some unwarranted hit job against Trump. He did something wrong, he just happens to be on the other side, but that side refuses to do anything, so this side has to. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Get over what? I hope the Dems use this opportunity to sink Trump, politically.

If they don't..what a bunch of losers.
 
Warp12 said:
Get over what? I hope the Dems use this opportunity to sink Trump, politically.

If they don't..what a bunch of losers.
Click to expand...

The Democrat track record in Congress, even just communicating its agenda to its base, has been piss poor for decades. So there's reason for pessimism. But what I'm trying to get into your head is there are two major players in this, and the relentless damage control and widespread propaganda from congressional Republicans and Republican-aligned media play a part in keeping Trump politically afloat.

"Okay let's see you get this done; if you fail you're a bunch of losers" is just downright simplistic.
 
Warp12 said:
As I say, at least we are in agreement that the committee is highly partisan.
Click to expand...

Compared to Benghazi, it's not one iota partisan.

It is intellectually dishonest to assume that just because Republicans will always be partisan that Democrats will be, too.

You still haven presented any evidence for partisanship.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Get over what? I hope the Dems use this opportunity to sink Trump, politically.

If they don't..what a bunch of losers.
Click to expand...

And what will you say the Republicans - who know exactly what Trump is and did and yet actively worked to prevent them doing so - are a bunch of? Winners, I suppose.

The real losers will be the citizens of your country.
 
Warp12 said:
Did you not read earlier, when I stated that the Republicans played the situation stupidly? I guess not. That doesn't change the factual eventual outcome of a highly partisan committee.

As I have also mentioned, Dems will squeal like a gerbil stuck in Richard Gere's ass in order to avoid admitting this.

Clearly demonstrated by the comments.
Click to expand...
The problem is not us, Warp12. The problem is you claiming it is primarily a partisan committee when that is a minor issue. It's a GOP/Dump-cult talking point and you don't seem to recognize why no one is buying your claim of not being a Dump supporter.
 
Just a reminder that there are, in fact, two Republican representatives on the committee. At least one of them* is a solid conservative by any measure other than in the "undying loyalty to Donald Trump" metric.

The only way it is partisan is if you ignore the actual political parties and only define "party" by who has sworn fealty to Trump and who hasn't. That is not how anyone defines our political parties, except for the most fervent of Trump supporters.


*I really ought to spend some time learning more about Kinzinger.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I guess Warp unreservedly supported both impeachments.
Right?
Click to expand...

I am rather ambivalent towards both of them. Generally speaking, the first one was a complete waste of time and resources, and the second one very much rushed. Everyone knew they were both likely to die in the Senate.

So, a symbolic victory for the Democratic party, I suppose.
 
Warp12 said:
I am rather ambivalent towards both of them. Generally speaking, the first one was a complete waste of time and resources, and the second one very much rushed. Everyone knew they were both likely to die in the Senate.

So, a symbolic victory for the Democratic party, I suppose.
Click to expand...

But not hyper-partisan?
 
Warp12 said:
Huh? They were both fairly split along party lines, as you might expect. But there are other threads for that discussion, I'm sure.

As I say, I am not overly passionate about the topic.
Click to expand...

not in the Senate.

It's fascinating that you consider the Impeachments to be legitimate and bipartisan, if poorly executed, and the J6C as hyperpartisan.

Can you explain what makes them different, when in both cases it was refusal of Republican participation that made them a Democrat driven effort?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
not in the Senate.

It's fascinating that you consider the Impeachments to be legitimate and bipartisan, if poorly executed, and the J6C as hyperpartisan.

Can you explain what makes them different, when in both cases it was refusal of Republican participation that made them a Democrat driven effort?
Click to expand...

I don't think I am denying a highly partisan split in the impeachments. Just like I am pointing out the highly partisan nature of this committee. It is humorous, watching Dems deny this as a partisan committee. Meanwhile, they are screeching about a similar party divide in the SCOTUS, and willing to rewrite the rules after more than 150 years, in order to change it.

Why deny reality? Embrace it and make the most of it.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I don't think I am denying a highly partisan split in the impeachments. Just like I am pointing out the highly partisan nature of this committee. It is humorous, watching Dems deny this as a partisan committee. Meanwhile, they are screeching about a similar party divide in the SCOTUS, and willing to rewrite the rules after more than 150 years, in order to change it.

Why deny reality? Embrace it and make the most of it.
Click to expand...

150 years. How dramatic.

Didn't the Republicans decide in 2017 that SCOTUS nomination actions no longer need 60 votes (Gorsuch)?

Also, appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.
 
Thinking 2+2=4 and that 2+2=5 has to have a debate where both sides get to argue doesn't make you "bipartisan" or "open minded" or "outside the echo chamber" or "a free thinker" it just makes you an idiot, 9 times out of 10 an idiot who thinks 2+2=5.
 
This has been pointed out before, but I might have missed the answer.

Isn't the fact that there are 2 Republicans on the committee make it, by definition, NOT partisan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom