drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Mothra said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Agree with everything you said. Well said.

I think the timing of the hearing is suspect, and lends credence to the idea this will help them in the midterms. I think they are sadly mistaken. It's the economy that will matter more to people, and in that regard, Biden has done about the poorest job of any president during my lifetime. And I lived during the Carter admin.

---

Mothra said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Agree with everything you said. Well said.

I think the timing of the hearing is suspect, and lends credence to the idea this will help them in the midterms. I think they are sadly mistaken. It's the economy that will matter more to people, and in that regard, Biden has done about the poorest job of any president during my lifetime. And I lived during the Carter admin.

---

drahthaar said:

---

Mothra said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Agree with everything you said. Well said.

I think the timing of the hearing is suspect, and lends credence to the idea this will help them in the midterms. I think they are sadly mistaken. It's the economy that will matter more to people, and in that regard, Biden has done about the poorest job of any president during my lifetime. And I lived during the Carter admin.

---

Not much can help the Dems except GOP screw-ups in communication, infighting or bad candidates. Of course, they are quite capable of just that, I'm afraid.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Agree with everything you said. Well said.

I think the timing of the hearing is suspect, and lends credence to the idea this will help them in the midterms. I think they are sadly mistaken. It's the economy that will matter more to people, and in that regard, Biden has done about the poorest job of any president during my lifetime. And I lived during the Carter admin.

---

I agree all around. It is a show trial designed to get the base excited and turn out in November as well as to provide more ammunition if Trump runs in 2024. They cannot run on the present of future because Biden is likely is the worst president to-date after < two years in office, so the only option is to continue to parrot TDS and tie all Republicans as "literally Hitler."

I certainly cannot defend Trump's boorish behavior, but in fairness he was inaugurated under the first Big Lie and never really got a chance. And also not unique to Trump - Bush was "literally Hitler" as was Reagan before him. I'm old enough to remember the hysterics about George W. Bush and his plans to establish a global empire and refuse to leave office. Trump is just inherently a jackass and fights back - often in an immature, boorish manner - which is something establishment Republicans avoid. Every Republican candidate is a racist, nazi, transphobe, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, yada yada yada.

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Agree with everything you said. Well said.

I think the timing of the hearing is suspect, and lends credence to the idea this will help them in the midterms. I think they are sadly mistaken. It's the economy that will matter more to people, and in that regard, Biden has done about the poorest job of any president during my lifetime. And I lived during the Carter admin.

---

I agree all around. It is a show trial designed to get the base excited and turn out in November as well as to provide more ammunition if Trump runs in 2024. They cannot run on the present of future because Biden is likely is the worst president to-date after < two years in office, so the only option is to continue to parrot TDS and tie all Republicans as "literally Hitler."

I certainly cannot defend Trump's boorish behavior, but in fairness he was inaugurated under the first Big Lie and never really got a chance. And also not unique to Trump - Bush was "literally Hitler" as was Reagan before him. I'm old enough to remember the hysterics about George W. Bush and his plans to establish a global empire and refuse to leave office. Trump is just inherently a jackass and fights back - often in an immature, boorish manner - which is something establishment Republicans avoid. Every Republican candidate is a racist, nazi, transphobe, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, yada yada yada.

---

Agree with you about Trump. Our resident Dems and Never Trumpers don't like to talk about it, but his first couple of years in office were a witch hunt by both the Dems and a complicit media, no question.

I just wish he could have been an adult and much more moderate at times. If he could have controlled those urges, he would most likely still be president.

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

Why didn't Pelosi allow the GOP to staff the committee?

What were the ratings? Was it the bonanza the Democrats had hoped? That should be a good bellweather of how much the average American cares.

---

pic.twitter.com/Ke69G7qgmd

— mike luckovich (@mluckovichajc) June 13, 2022

---

Love this!

Really brilliant work by the Jan. 6 Committee.

Having Trump's own people talk about how deluded and wrong he was.

In fact, all who testified weren't just Republicans but Republicans close to Trump.

And Barr, his own lap dog, declaring the fraud stuff BS. Multiple times.

Amazing.

And to those who don't understand their history well, this is the flow of the investigative process.

First, Democrats proposed a bipartisan committee with equal numbers from each party. Republicans refused because they wanted no investigation.

Second, Democrats offered Republicans a chance to name members of the committee. McCarthy offered Republican clowns like Jim Jordan, who weren't at all serious.

Third, Democrats were able to recruit Cheney and Kinzinger, the only two who would agree other than said clowns.

The truth is Republicans wanted no investigation at all because they don't want us to know the truth.

---

The real question though is whether it will have the desired effect of getting Democrats elected in the mid-terms. What are your thoughts? Will the dog and pony show help your party get elected?

---

To be honest, I would like for it to help in the mid-terms, but I don't think it will, at least not directly. It could help in swing districts in which you have a Trump lie water carrier vs. a Democrat who's a good candidate. Democrats will have great clips for ads showing that anyone who thinks Trump really got elected isn't in touch with reality and doesn't need to be serving in Congress.

My greater hope that it will alienate Trump to almost all swing voters and to a few Republicans, and will kill any chance for Trump to win in 2024. There's a host of Republicans chomping at the bit to run for president (Pence, Haley, Cruz, Rubio, Pompeo, etc. etc.). They just need more blood in the water around Trump.

It seems to be more dog than pony show because it has taken a pretty good bite out of Trump's ass.

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Interesting analysis.

But we didn't know Barr told Trump the whole election fraud thing was BS.

We also didn't know that Trump defrauded his own supporters by soliciting contributions to a legal defense fund that didn't exist and then use the money for political purposes.

I think we're also going to learn that Trump not only inspired but also directed the Proud Boys and others to attract the capitol on his cue. That's definitely new.

If it's such nonsense, why did Fox feel compelled to act something like an actual news channel and start carrying it.

It's because the Committee has done a great job and made a damning presentation so far.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

Rawhide said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

Why didn't Pelosi allow the GOP to staff the committee?

What were the ratings? Was it the bonanza the Democrats had hoped? That should be a good bellweather of how much the average American cares.

---

pic.twitter.com/Ke69G7qgmd

— mike luckovich (@mluckovichajc) June 13, 2022

---

Love this!

Really brilliant work by the Jan. 6 Committee.

Having Trump's own people talk about how deluded and wrong he was.

In fact, all who testified weren't just Republicans but Republicans close to Trump.

And Barr, his own lap dog, declaring the fraud stuff BS. Multiple times.

Amazing.

And to those who don't understand their history well, this is the flow of the investigative process.

First, Democrats proposed a bipartisan committee with equal numbers from each party. Republicans refused because they wanted no investigation.

Second, Democrats offered Republicans a chance to name members of the committee. McCarthy offered Republican clowns like Jim Jordan, who weren't at all serious.

Third, Democrats were able to recruit Cheney and Kinzinger, the only two who would agree other than said clowns.

The truth is Republicans wanted no investigation at all because they don't want us to know the truth.

---

The real question though is whether it will have the desired effect of getting Democrats elected in the mid-terms. What are your thoughts? Will the dog and pony show help your party get elected?

---

To be honest, I would like for it to help in the mid-terms, but I don't think it will, at least not directly. It could help in swing districts in which you have a Trump lie water carrier vs. a Democrat who's a good candidate. Democrats will have great clips for ads showing that anyone who thinks Trump really got elected isn't in touch with reality and doesn't need to be serving in Congress.

My greater hope that it will alienate Trump to almost all swing voters and to a few Republicans, and will kill any chance for Trump to win in 2024. There's a host of Republicans chomping at the bit to run for president (Pence, Haley, Cruz, Rubio, Pompeo, etc. etc.). They just need more blood in the water around Trump.

It seems to be more dog than pony show because it has taken a pretty good bite out of Trump's ass.

---

If Trump doesn't run, then you'll need to learn to to accept a DeSantis presidency.

DeSantis is Trump 2.0 - all the balls and less the baggage.

You're going to love him.

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Probably there are a sack full of "goals" within this committee and vary with who one asks. It does appear that the one universal goal is to find some way to keep Trump from being able to ever run for elected office again. There will different levels of pettiness due to the committee composition, of course, and IMO some of these folks ought to be in that "ineligible-to-run" category with Trump based on their past actions. If they can find a legit conclusion on which to Impeach Trump, they will have succeeded. It's not about "removal from office" which is one reason why impeachment wasn't pursued in January: it was too late and moot. It is Trump's prior actions while in office that paved the committee's way. If Trump wasn't such a boor, jerk, and petty narcissist who dug his own political hole on social media, we wouldn't be in this mess (probably). It certainly wasn't his administration's policies that failed the nation. The boor made the far-left influence possible.

---

Agree with everything you said. Well said.

I think the timing of the hearing is suspect, and lends credence to the idea this will help them in the midterms. I think they are sadly mistaken. It's the economy that will matter more to people, and in that regard, Biden has done about the poorest job of any president during my lifetime. And I lived during the Carter admin.

---

I agree all around. It is a show trial designed to get the base excited and turn out in November as well as to provide more ammunition if Trump runs in 2024. They cannot run on the present of future because Biden is likely is the worst president to-date after < two years in office, so the only option is to continue to parrot TDS and tie all Republicans as "literally Hitler."

I certainly cannot defend Trump's boorish behavior, but in fairness he was inaugurated under the first Big Lie and never really got a chance. And also not unique to Trump - Bush was "literally Hitler" as was Reagan before him. I'm old enough to remember the hysterics about George W. Bush and his plans to establish a global empire and refuse to leave office. Trump is just inherently a jackass and fights back - often in an immature, boorish manner - which is something establishment Republicans avoid. Every Republican candidate is a racist, nazi, transphobe, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, yada yada yada.

---

Agree with you about Trump. Our resident Dems and Never Trumpers don't like to talk about it, but his first couple of years in office were a witch hunt by both the Dems and a complicit media, no question.

I just wish he could have been an adult and much more moderate at times. If he could have controlled those urges, he would most likely still be president.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Interesting analysis.

But we didn't know Barr told Trump the whole election fraud thing was BS.

We also didn't know that Trump defrauded his own supporters by soliciting contributions to a legal defense fund that didn't exist and then use the money for political purposes.

I think we're also going to learn that Trump not only inspired but also directed the Proud Boys and others to attract the capitol on his cue. That's definitely new.

If it's such nonsense, why did Fox feel compelled to act something like an actual news channel and start carrying it.

It's because the Committee has done a great job and made a damning presentation so far.

---

A colleague thinks Fox covered yesterday's hearings because they featured a former Fox employee, whose justifiable pride in his professional competence was actually a bright spot in some sickening revelations. I watch Fox's election coverage and remember the classic moment when Megyn Kelly marched back to the projection room.

Barr has certainly revealed himself as much more capable of playing all ends against the middle and somehow managing to slink off with no consequences despite the fact that his fingerprints are all over all sorts of dirty dealings in the course of these hearings. Anyone who considers Barr in any way a hero for finally telling the truth has a very short memory.

Barr and Mueller set us up for these hearings by refusing to hold Trump accountable before.

Those praising Trump's outstanding admin also have short memories, of how he treated Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Joh, Kelly, Jeff Sessions (who tried his damndest to do Trump's bidding re: refugee asylum), Steve Bannon, Steve Mnuchin, who had his 2018 financial disclosure statement rejected by the U.S. Ethics Office because he sold his stake in a movie production company to his girlfriend and then married her, and Wilbur Ross, who also had his financial disclsure rejected. Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt both resigned in disgrace, with Zinke facing federal probes into his travel, political activity and potential conflicts of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

Republicans care so little about personal accountability of the politicians they elect to have discretion over taxpayer dollars that Zinke may win a congressional seat in Montana.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

Why didn't Pelosi allow the GOP to staff the committee?

What were the ratings? Was it the bonanza the Democrats had hoped? That should be a good bellweather of how much the average American cares.

---

pic.twitter.com/Ke69G7qgmd

— mike luckovich (@mluckovichajc) June 13, 2022

---

Love this!

Really brilliant work by the Jan. 6 Committee.

Having Trump's own people talk about how deluded and wrong he was.

In fact, all who testified weren't just Republicans but Republicans close to Trump.

And Barr, his own lap dog, declaring the fraud stuff BS. Multiple times.

Amazing.

And to those who don't understand their history well, this is the flow of the investigative process.

First, Democrats proposed a bipartisan committee with equal numbers from each party. Republicans refused because they wanted no investigation.

Second, Democrats offered Republicans a chance to name members of the committee. McCarthy offered Republican clowns like Jim Jordan, who weren't at all serious.

Third, Democrats were able to recruit Cheney and Kinzinger, the only two who would agree other than said clowns.

The truth is Republicans wanted no investigation at all because they don't want us to know the truth.

---

The real question though is whether it will have the desired effect of getting Democrats elected in the mid-terms. What are your thoughts? Will the dog and pony show help your party get elected?

---

To be honest, I would like for it to help in the mid-terms, but I don't think it will, at least not directly. It could help in swing districts in which you have a Trump lie water carrier vs. a Democrat who's a good candidate. Democrats will have great clips for ads showing that anyone who thinks Trump really got elected isn't in touch with reality and doesn't need to be serving in Congress.

My greater hope that it will alienate Trump to almost all swing voters and to a few Republicans, and will kill any chance for Trump to win in 2024. There's a host of Republicans chomping at the bit to run for president (Pence, Haley, Cruz, Rubio, Pompeo, etc. etc.). They just need more blood in the water around Trump.

It seems to be more dog than pony show because it has taken a pretty good bite out of Trump's ass.

---

If Trump doesn't run, then you'll need to learn to to accept a DeSantis presidency.

DeSantis is Trump 2.0 - all the balls and less the baggage.

You're going to love him.

---

DeSantis is a facist.

He's a lot smarter than Trump and a lot more dangerous, although his willingness to take on corporate citizens like Disney may prove more costly than he thinks.

He also puts the lie to all the Trump huffing and puffing about twitter and free speech with moves like this:

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/desantis-called-fascist-for-barring-media-from-voting-rights-bill-signing-12216689

---

Ted Cruz FINALLY demands answers from the FBI about Jan 6th — the FBI’s answer is chilling

pic.twitter.com/zPGHjAzSba

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 14, 2022

Redbrickbear said:

---

FBI still won't answer if it had agents involved in the events of Jan. 6th

Ted Cruz FINALLY demands answers from the FBI about Jan 6th — the FBI’s answer is chilling

pic.twitter.com/zPGHjAzSba

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 14, 2022

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Interesting analysis.

But we didn't know Barr told Trump the whole election fraud thing was BS.

We also didn't know that Trump defrauded his own supporters by soliciting contributions to a legal defense fund that didn't exist and then use the money for political purposes.

I think we're also going to learn that Trump not only inspired but also directed the Proud Boys and others to attract the capitol on his cue. That's definitely new.

If it's such nonsense, why did Fox feel compelled to act something like an actual news channel and start carrying it.

It's because the Committee has done a great job and made a damning presentation so far.

---

A colleague thinks Fox covered yesterday's hearings because they featured a former Fox employee, whose justifiable pride in his professional competence was actually a bright spot in some sickening revelations. I watch Fox's election coverage and remember the classic moment when Megyn Kelly marched back to the projection room.

Barr has certainly revealed himself as much more capable of playing all ends against the middle and somehow managing to slink off with no consequences despite the fact that his fingerprints are all over all sorts of dirty dealings in the course of these hearings. Anyone who considers Barr in any way a hero for finally telling the truth has a very short memory.

Barr and Mueller set us up for these hearings by refusing to hold Trump accountable before.

Those praising Trump's outstanding admin also have short memories, of how he treated Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Joh, Kelly, Jeff Sessions (who tried his damndest to do Trump's bidding re: refugee asylum), Steve Bannon, Steve Mnuchin, who had his 2018 financial disclosure statement rejected by the U.S. Ethics Office because he sold his stake in a movie production company to his girlfriend and then married her, and Wilbur Ross, who also had his financial disclsure rejected. Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt both resigned in disgrace, with Zinke facing federal probes into his travel, political activity and potential conflicts of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

Republicans care so little about personal accountability of the politicians they elect to have discretion over taxpayer dollars that Zinke may win a congressional seat in Montana.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Interesting analysis.

But we didn't know Barr told Trump the whole election fraud thing was BS.

We also didn't know that Trump defrauded his own supporters by soliciting contributions to a legal defense fund that didn't exist and then use the money for political purposes.

I think we're also going to learn that Trump not only inspired but also directed the Proud Boys and others to attract the capitol on his cue. That's definitely new.

If it's such nonsense, why did Fox feel compelled to act something like an actual news channel and start carrying it.

It's because the Committee has done a great job and made a damning presentation so far.

---

A colleague thinks Fox covered yesterday's hearings because they featured a former Fox employee, whose justifiable pride in his professional competence was actually a bright spot in some sickening revelations. I watch Fox's election coverage and remember the classic moment when Megyn Kelly marched back to the projection room.

Barr has certainly revealed himself as much more capable of playing all ends against the middle and somehow managing to slink off with no consequences despite the fact that his fingerprints are all over all sorts of dirty dealings in the course of these hearings. Anyone who considers Barr in any way a hero for finally telling the truth has a very short memory.

Barr and Mueller set us up for these hearings by refusing to hold Trump accountable before.

Those praising Trump's outstanding admin also have short memories, of how he treated Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Joh, Kelly, Jeff Sessions (who tried his damndest to do Trump's bidding re: refugee asylum), Steve Bannon, Steve Mnuchin, who had his 2018 financial disclosure statement rejected by the U.S. Ethics Office because he sold his stake in a movie production company to his girlfriend and then married her, and Wilbur Ross, who also had his financial disclsure rejected. Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt both resigned in disgrace, with Zinke facing federal probes into his travel, political activity and potential conflicts of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

Republicans care so little about personal accountability of the politicians they elect to have discretion over taxpayer dollars that Zinke may win a congressional seat in Montana.

---

Call me crazy, but I think treason, sedition and insurrection should be investigated as thoroughly as a blowjob! #TrumpIsATraitor #TrumpCoupAttempt #TrumpIsGuilty pic.twitter.com/IUoBA5hKrr

— Snarky Tennista Calls Bullshit 🌊🌊🌊🌊 (@snarkytennista) June 13, 2022

J.B.Katz said:

---

Call me crazy, but I think treason, sedition and insurrection should be investigated as thoroughly as a blowjob! #TrumpIsATraitor #TrumpCoupAttempt #TrumpIsGuilty pic.twitter.com/IUoBA5hKrr

— Snarky Tennista Calls Bullshit 🌊🌊🌊🌊 (@snarkytennista) June 13, 2022

---

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Call me crazy, but I think treason, sedition and insurrection should be investigated as thoroughly as a blowjob! #TrumpIsATraitor #TrumpCoupAttempt #TrumpIsGuilty pic.twitter.com/IUoBA5hKrr

— Snarky Tennista Calls Bullshit 🌊🌊🌊🌊 (@snarkytennista) June 13, 2022

---

insurection by definition is an armed force.. how
Many guns were there on jan 6th by rioters? Zero weapons charges so far.. only gun that was there that shouldnt have been was Byrds

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

This is a good example of actual history that some Trump Republicans don't want taught in public schools.

See the 14th amendment (citizenship + equal protection under the law-1868-to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., the15th amendment, allowing black men to vote (1869--hard-fought, that one) and the 19th amendment (ratified in 1920), allowing women to vote.

The 1828 presidential election was the first in which non-property-owning white males could vote in most states.

Voting rights are currently under assault in Republican dominated states, including Florida. If Republicans do this, they are virtually guaranteeing some form of a civil war.

Especially after the revelations of the Jan. 6 committee, truths which Republicans fought very hard to prevent from coming out and to suppress.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/23/voter-suppression-election-interference-republicans

https://www.history.com/news/voting-rights-timeline

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

You do realize that is a parody, do you not?

Duped by a fake press release. It figures.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

You do realize that is a parody, do you not?

Duped by a fake press release. It figures.

---

I did.

But I don't think some posters on this site, including some who support Trump, did, because some of that message sounds entirely plausible.

Which is hilarious.

Satire for the (m)asses...

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

You do realize that is a parody, do you not?

Duped by a fake press release. It figures.

---

I did.

But I don't think some posters on this site, including some who support Trump, did, because some of that message sounds entirely plausible.

Which is hilarious.

Satire for the (m)asses...

---

So you posted it because you thought Trump supporters would fall for it?

---