The Commish
Footballguy
What would you consider "if one part is not 100% correct, everything is wrong"?They aren't budging but neither are you. I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.
What would you consider "if one part is not 100% correct, everything is wrong"?They aren't budging but neither are you. I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.
Which do you think made it to a headline of the NYT?You seem focused on "show trial" and "BS". You understand that the two things below really are different, right?
Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?
Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?
human nature.What would you consider "if one part is not 100% correct, everything is wrong"?
I disagree. Similar to bigbottom's comment above, if it's proven that Hutchinson had straight up lied or intentionally fabricated a portion of her testimony, I will concede that she is not a credible witness. I don't think we'll ever see the aforementioned posters say, "You know what. She was proven to be a credible witness." They'll just move on to some other way to dismiss the gravity of the hearings.They aren't budging but neither are you. I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.
He completely manufactured dialogue for Trump during one of the committees or hearings he was chairing. It's POSSIBLE it got more attention in conservative media than the outlets with a strong bias towards Democrats so you may not have heard about it.A few days ago I asked why Adam Schiff’s credibility would be in question, since he strikes me as an integrity guy, and certainly one of the smartest people we have in Congress. I received no compelling answer. I don’t believe there is one.I'm honestly surprised they even let Schiff within a mile of this circus. They're too lazy to even pretend it's not a show trial.
I heard about it. It turned out to be a completely false story (like so much else that is “reported” in the conservative media.) Got anything real?He completely manufactured dialogue for Trump during one of the committees or hearings he was chairing. It's POSSIBLE it got more attention in conservative media than the outlets with a strong bias towards Democrats so you may not have heard about it.
I mean, there's video. It happened.I heard about it. It turned out to be a completely false story (like so much else that is “reported” in the conservative media.) Got anything real?
I watched that video at the time. Schiff didn’t make up anything. He paraphrased a few words but it was an accurate representation. And President Trump was guilty of some pretty serious crimes against the USA.I mean, there's video. It happened.
This Tony Ornato must be dying to testify. I keep looking for his public statement, and can't find it.
wowThey're just trying to get people suspended I believe. They got one a couple days ago.
I appreciate you being even handedThey aren't budging but neither are you. I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.
you're way more gracious than I am GB...always have beenhuman nature.
No idea. Wasn't what I asked.Which do you think made it to a headline of the NYT?You seem focused on "show trial" and "BS". You understand that the two things below really are different, right?
Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?
Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?
I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith.I appreciate you being even handed
Thank you
The “we got him yet” stuff certainly isn’t in good faith.They aren't budging but neither are you. I don't think they are arguing in bad faith.
I wouldn't even go that far.I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith.
But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth.
I'm pointing out the fact that when he does it, its taken as Gospel (must be true, why would the Prez lie right) , when someone does under oath, its "got to be a lie" just pointing out the consistent inconsistencies really.So you're saying Trump talking randomly off the cuff to a crowd or to reporters has as much merit as this congressional hearing? I think we're finally on the same page then.
This.I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith.
But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth.
I listened to that on our trip up from Florida -- thanks for posting that --This.
Tim, if you have 30-40 minutes today, I highly recommend you listen to the Bulwark’s discussion with Tim Miller, former GOP operative. He talks about how so many of the leaders/players in GOP politics don’t even believe in any of the stuff they’re putting out.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bulwark-podcast/id1447684472?i=1000568026034
It's more than this, though. As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go. We should all wonder why that happened. Was it a direct order from Trump? Was it an order/delay from someone else? Was it just negligence?I wouldn't even go that far.
There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side. Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs. We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize. I think it is helpful to recognize that.
The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases. It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".
The frustrating thing is, I haven't heard any of the trump apologists (sorry, thats really what you're doing even if you say you don't like Trump), say --"I watched the whole Hutcheson interview and I don't find any of her accounts credible" -- if anyone really watched it, you don't even need MSM telling you anything -I wouldn't even go that far.
There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side. Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs. We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize. I think it is helpful to recognize that.
The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases. It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".
Some of us are more in tune with this phenomenon than others and adjust accordingly. To me, it's pretty easy to identify who's open to new information that may challenge their bias and who's wearing an iron helmet to deflect anything coming at them. I dare say I think you're stating a false equivalence.I wouldn't even go that far.
There is something in the human psyche that tells us to believe what our tribe believes, and not believe the other side. Folks like @ZADO are pre-disposed to have a lot of skepticism for cases against their tribesmen, just as liberals are skeptical when presented cases against theirs. We are all coming at this with inherent biases that we don't recognize. I think it is helpful to recognize that.
The media we all consume only feeds and reinforces those biases. It doesn't take very long before we consider our biases to be "truth".
It's more than this, though. As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go. We should all wonder why that happened. Was it a direct order from Trump? Was it an order/delay from someone else? Was it just negligence?
My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."
The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this and despite the fact that this would be impossible since Nancy Pelosi isn't in that chain of command).
It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.
IMO "bias" and "willful ignorance" are cousins. They aren't the same, but they are related.It's more than this, though. As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go. We should all wonder why that happened. Was it a direct order from Trump? Was it an order/delay from someone else? Was it just negligence?
My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."
The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this and despite the fact that this would be impossible since Nancy Pelosi isn't in that chain of command).
It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.
Hannity calls it "exculpatory" that Trump had allegedly "authorized " troops in the lead up to Jan 6. These people are so ridiculous.It's more than this, though. As an example, the National Guard wasn't deployed on 1/6 for hours, despite being requested and ready to go. We should all wonder why that happened. Was it a direct order from Trump? Was it an order/delay from someone else? Was it just negligence?
My answer is "I don't know but I'd sure like to find out."
The Trump sycophants either aren't interested in knowing or they've come to believe that it was Nancy Pelosi who prevented it (despite there being literally zero evidence of this).
It's not "bias" at that point, it's intentional, willful ignorance.
Easy there...he did not call anyone a psychopath. Once again, you are finding a way to paint yourself a victim.Lol..You perfectly demonstrated moleculo's point. You state you don't know. But then you call the Trump supporters psychopaths for blaming Pelosi, but think it is perfectly rationale to think Trump did it. There is no evidence for either despite the investigation, but you displayed extreme bias when trying to make your point.
Easy there...he did not call anyone a psychopath. Once again, you are finding a way to paint yourself a victim.
I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?No idea. Wasn't what I asked.
Do you believe that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?
Do you believe that Ornato stated that Trump tried to grab/turn the wheel?
The difference is that Trump could have caused the delay, in that he was within the chain of command that could have made a delay happen. Nancy Pelosi was not.Lol..You perfectly demonstrated moleculo's point. You state you don't know. But then you call the Trump supporters psychopaths for blaming Pelosi, but think it is perfectly rationale to think Trump did it. There is no evidence for either despite the investigation, but you displayed extreme bias when trying to make your point.
Most of you guys are lucky enough to be young and no idea who Tony Orlando is.Tap that yellow smilie for another ol' conspir........acy!!
Can you point me to where you answered those two specific questions? Seriously, I've seen you call it nonsense, but I've never once seen you state which part is the nonsense. Is the nonsense that "Trump did X" or is it that "Ornato said Trump did X" or is it both?I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?
The difference is that Trump could have caused the delay, in that he was within the chain of command that could have made a delay happen. Nancy Pelosi was not.
Did Trump do it? As I wrote above, I don't know. I'd like to find out.
Did Pelosi do it? We know that it's not possible. People who believe she did are willfully ignorant.
See the difference yet?
Famous for writing songs about prison...Most of you guys are lucky enough to be young and no idea who Tony Orlando is.
OK, now go in the Hunter Biden thread and dismiss everything that might indicate he's unsavory. Then you'll be on equal footing with what we see in here.IMO "bias" and "willful ignorance" are cousins. They aren't the same, but they are related.
I'm willfully ignorant about Hunter Biden scandals. I really don't care all that much.
All true. That doesn't invalidate my point, however. The point is that we don't yet know why the delay happened. We should all be interested in finding out. Trump sycophants aren't interested.Just because someone is not in the chain of command does not mean they can't butt in and influence something. Usually the national guard is just not deployed unilaterally. There is some acceptance from whom they are sending it for.
All true. That doesn't invalidate my point, however. The point is that we don't yet know why the delay happened. We should all be interested in finding out. Trump sycophants aren't interested.
You seem to be having real difficulty with hearsay vs direct evidence and how the witness is only saying that she was told by the SS that the steering wheel was grabbed at. You aren't understanding that if she was told this by the SS, but it turns out that the SS was embelishing, it does not mean she is not a credible witness.I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?
nah. Like I said, i don't really care that much.OK, now go in the Hunter Biden thread and dismiss everything that might indicate he's unsavory. Then you'll be on equal footing with what we see in here.
Good post. This is exactly it.OK, now go in the Hunter Biden thread and dismiss everything that might indicate he's unsavory. Then you'll be on equal footing with what we see in here.
Screaming that Nancy Pelosi rejected the National Guard shows they aren't interested.But they are very interested. What they aren't interested in is legitimizing this committee as anything but the anti-Trump circle-jerk that it is. This seems like a question the committee already knows the answer to (or should), but does not want to be known.
Well, I didn't expect you to actually do it or be that intellectually dishonest, which is what you'd have to be to suddenly approach the discussion that way.nah. Like I said, i don't really care that much.
it is odd how many people post in a topic that allegedly no one cares about.Well, I didn't expect you to actually do it or be that intellectually dishonest, which is what you'd have to be to suddenly approach the discussion that way.
Is this some kind of code?I've answered these several times. Since you won't answer my question about which gets reported, let's try this: what does it tell that you need to break those out into two different questions?
Screaming that Nancy Pelosi rejected the National Guard shows they aren't interested.
Moreover, the committee already has shown us some information regarding the delay. I'm interested in that. I'm interested in what else they show us. As a trial, let's see how interested you are. Can tell us what information the committee has already presented regarding the delay?
That doesn't sound very inclusive for the rest of us.We should not lower the bar for intelligent discussion and debate by giving excuses for why one side chooses not to see what is in front of their eyes,
Hmm. This statement appears to be the exact opposite of the truth.If Trump had his way, there would have been no January 6th insurrection.
Honestly im not even trying to argue , that gets us nowhere as we see here day in and day out.I also don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith.
But I do think you’ve been manipulated by dishonest sources telling you what you want to hear rather than the truth.
There have certainly been reports about Trump, and rumors, that have turned out to be false, no question.Honestly im not even trying to argue , that gets us nowhere as we see here day in and day out.
I have my POV and it differs from others and some agree .
The reason I and others dont trust testimony under oath as readily as others when it comes to Trump is because we have watched as many lies as truths told about Trump . We have been watching them unfold in real time story after story for over 4 years straight. Im not going to rehash them ill merely say Russia and MAGA COUNTRY ,to name a couple . Why on earth would we easily accept anyone on just there word ,we need solid evidence at this point . I understand why those who hate Trump believe every single claim made against him, he has said and done some shady crap , but many of the claims against him have fallen short .