The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[Tiberius]

Lock him up!! And Rudy, too! 

 

Sending thugs after a grandmother, absolutely horrible 

[Jauronimo]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm always willing to stop the game, but after the 4+ years of Russia and things like the Kavanaugh debacle, I simply say "Let's stop the game and work toward unity....but you first.".  Not you specifically, but, well, you know. 

"Good for the party"...I'm don't know.  I didn't think he was good for the party to begin with--and in spite of his flaws I enjoyed the persona, The Apprentice etc.  I was driving near Springfield, Mass when he announces and thought it was just classic Trump with the rebrand.   At the same time, I was disillusioned with R leadership and the thought of Jeb Bush being the nominee sickened me.  Another Clinton was a non-starter for me..and I was at the point where I viewed the D/R leadership as just one big party with a few special interests one way or the other. 

 

So, I think people underestimate the Trump effect.  In spite of 5 years of hammering about what a treasonous person he was, he garnered nearly 75,000,000 votes.   I would think the 1/6 issue will cost him very few of those voters, and that all other thing being equal, Biden might drive many, many more to vote for him. 

 

The truth is, before COVID, he appeared to be in a very good position to win re-election.  The economy was humming, money long held offshore due to onerous tax law was being repatriated, and there was optimism in spite of his own antics, and the intention of the mainstream media outlets to tie everything bad with the world to him.  

 

I think there may be a better way to go about things moving forward.  I don't claim to know a ton about DeSantis, his legendary status and his 'he's the demon seed' reputation are likely both vastly overstated.  I think a more well-disciplined candidate, with a reputation for cutting through the b*llshit, calling out his enemies and throwing shots back at them is a better answer at this point given Trump's age at that point.   

 

I do know that regardless of the choice, the dems will attempt to savage him/her with every accusation under the sun.  A buddy of mine is a believer in Clinton, a hater of Trump, and suggested that he never really hated Bush the W.   The reality is that he did, he used to drip with scorn discussing him, how America "looked" on the international stage, etc etc.  It wasn't until W morphed from a war criminal as President to lovable old Gampy Bush, painter in retirement that the edge came off. 

 

 

 

I think there is virtually nothing he can do that will cost him too many votes.  Which is frightening.  

 

After watching the Democrats paint Romney (who is by nearly every account a stand-up, decent man) as the anti-christ I felt like they actually deserved 4 years of Don.  Its funny how they forgot about that era.  Don gave them much needed perspective.  Can you even imagine horse ownership or putting a dog kennel on a roof rack registering as a scandal these days? 

[Tiberius]

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

Personally, I think those riots were more about not wanting Trump and I would wager that close to 100% of them still don't want Trump. He didn't do himself any favors while in office and he can't depend on the failures of the succeeding president to win him back voters.

 

I thought it was a general "more people didn't want Trump than didn't want Biden" in the election.  If you were just talking about the rioters, yeah, I'd agree with you. 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I thought it was a general "more people didn't want Trump than didn't want Biden" in the election.  If you were just talking about the rioters, yeah, I'd agree with you. 

Young people pushed Biden over the top in 2020 and will do it again (no matter who runs for the D or R) in 2024.

 

You best do what you’re cult is good at pass more voter suppression laws QDoc.

[BillStime]

The most corrupt administration in our lifetime.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

So, it gives us a picture of the cover page (thanks? Still no link to a report) And then says this before going into speculation:

 

According to the Department of Justice website, “A CDU is composed of law enforcement officers who are trained to respond to protests, demonstrations, and civil disturbances for the purpose of preventing violence, destruction of property, and unlawful interference with persons exercising their rights under law.”

The objective of MPD was “to assist with the safe execution of any First Amendment demonstration and ensure the safety of the participants, public, and the officers.” CDU personnel and Special Operations Division  (SOD) members were to “monitor for any demonstration and/or violent activity and respond accordingly,” according to the report.

There has been speculation that federal agents and Capitol Police were involved in instigating acts of violence during the protests for the purposes of entrapment. As Red State reported in October 2021, “multiple surveillance videos show masked men opening up the doors to the U.S. Capitol Building to allow protesters to enter. In fact, one video shows them entering while Capitol Police officers simply stand around. Yet, we have no idea who those men are.”

 

So, in your own words @B-Man, what are your conclusions from this?

 

 

Links to multiple articles, right and left, will not do, because I can't find a link to the year and a half old police report.  That's the stand that you want to take.

 

The report shows that were indeed federal agents at the protest turned riot on Jan. 6th, as to their role I am certain that we differ.

 

I think that they help "push" some rioters into more than they would have (based on several federal actions seen in the past 2 years)

 

Others feel that the agents were just their to observe and act only if need be.

 

 

The police report (as reported) confirms that those agents were there, it does NOT state what their roles were, or certainly it would be widespread everywhere.

 

I hope that scratches your itch.

 

 

.

 

 

[Doc]

Just now, B-Man said:

Links to multiple articles, right and left, will not do, because I can't find a link to the year and a half old police report.  That's the stand that you want to take.

 

The report shows that were indeed federal agents at the protest turned riot on Jan. 6th, as to their role I am certain that we differ.

 

I think that they help "push" some rioters into more than they would have (based on several federal actions seen in the past 2 years)

 

Others feel that the agents were just their to observe and act only if need be.

 

 

The police report (as reported) confirms that those agents were there, it does NOT state what their roles were, or certainly it would be widespread everywhere.

 

I hope that scratches your itch.

 

They were obviously there to watch and do nothing.  The question (no one is asking) is "why?"

[Doc]

 

But no matter.  Independents have (finally) caught onto the ways of the Dems.  No more believing fake scandals or promises to do X and then doing Y or "shutting down" something while campaigning from your basement.

[LeGOATski]

53 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The truth is, before COVID, he appeared to be in a very good position to win re-election.  The economy was humming, money long held offshore due to onerous tax law was being repatriated, and there was optimism in spite of his own antics, and the intention of the mainstream media outlets to tie everything bad with the world to him.  

 

I think there may be a better way to go about things moving forward.  I don't claim to know a ton about DeSantis, his legendary status and his 'he's the demon seed' reputation are likely both vastly overstated.  I think a more well-disciplined candidate, with a reputation for cutting through the b*llshit, calling out his enemies and throwing shots back at them is a better answer at this point given Trump's age at that point.   

I can't relate to the part of someone's character that enjoys Trump's persona, but I like the rest of this. There has to be a better leader in the Republican party somewhere.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I can't relate to the part of someone's character that enjoys Trump's persona, but I like the rest of this. There has to be a better leader in the Republican party somewhere.

 

The same can be said for the Democratic Party.  They have no one.  

[LeGOATski]

13 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Links to multiple articles, right and left, will not do, because I can't find a link to the year and a half old police report.  That's the stand that you want to take.

 

The report shows that were indeed federal agents at the protest turned riot on Jan. 6th, as to their role I am certain that we differ.

 

I think that they help "push" some rioters into more than they would have (based on several federal actions seen in the past 2 years)

 

Others feel that the agents were just their to observe and act only if need be.

 

 

The police report (as reported) confirms that those agents were there, it does NOT state what their roles were, or certainly it would be widespread everywhere.

 

I hope that scratches your itch.

 

 

.

 

 

You have no idea what's in the report. And you have no desire to see any source material. That's what I'm getting at. The headline is good enough to serve the purpose of feeding your speculation.

 

And that's exactly what the article does. It takes a quote which outlines a process that is common practice for a police department (which I also have some first hand knowledge of because I work for one) and which is a completely transparent practice (they're not hiding it from anyone; the policy is literally published on their public website) and it flips it with an attempt to portray it as some weird conspiracy. Then you contribute all this speculation to it as if it's some sort of smoking gun report.

 

You understand this, right?

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The same can be said for the Democratic Party.  They have no one.  

Totally. America is in desperate need of a real leader.

[B-Man]

14 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

You have no idea what's in the report. And you have no desire to see any source material. That's what I'm getting at. The headline is good enough to serve the purpose of feeding your speculation.

 

And that's exactly what the article does. It takes a quote which outlines a process that is common practice for a police department (which I also have some first hand knowledge of because I work for one) and which is a completely transparent practice (they're not hiding it from anyone; the policy is literally published on their public website) and it flips it with an attempt to portray it as some weird conspiracy. Then you contribute all this speculation to it as if it's some sort of smoking gun report.

 

You understand this, right?

Totally. America is in desperate need of a real leader.

 

 

No.

 

People who have read the report (right and left) have written articles about what it says.

 

You (in a vain attempt) to divert from the lack of any substance coming out about the "insurrection"  (remember when people called it that)

 

want to say that it is claiming a weird conspiracy and that I am looking at it as a smoking gun.

 

This is just your own misconception, you are wrongly assuming what I am posting for. Viewing my posts through your own bias filter.

 

You understand this right.

 

 

 

That's okay though. I have run across this type of response all too often in the decade that I have been posting here.

 

 

 

[LeGOATski]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No.

 

People who have read the report (right and left) have written articles about what it says.

 

You (in a vain attempt) to divert from the lack of any substance coming out about the "insurrection"  (remember when people called it that)

 

want to say that it is claiming a weird conspiracy and that I am looking at it as a smoking gun.

 

This is just your own misconception, you are wrongly assuming what I am posting for. Viewing my posts through your own bias filter.

 

You understand this right.

 

 

 

That's okay though. I have run across this type of response all too often in the decade that I have been posting here.

 

 

 

☝🏻️ Straight out of the conspiracy theorist's playbook.

 

Tell me some well-known fact about a completely transparent process and I'll flip it into some kind of deviant act to feed my fears.

[JDHillFan]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Young people pushed Biden over the top in 2020 and will do it again (no matter who runs for the D or R) in 2024.

 

You best do what you’re cult is good at pass more voter suppression laws QDoc.

Are young people sitting out 2022? 

[Andy1]

Never count on young voters showing up for mid-term elections. They are not reliable. Opposition R party has the motivated voters.

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:

Are young people sitting out 2022? 

You better hope so 

 

💦

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

I think there is virtually nothing he can do that will cost him too many votes.  Which is frightening.  

 

After watching the Democrats paint Romney (who is by nearly every account a stand-up, decent man) as the anti-christ I felt like they actually deserved 4 years of Don.  Its funny how they forgot about that era.  Don gave them much needed perspective.  Can you even imagine horse ownership or putting a dog kennel on a roof rack registering as a scandal these days? 

Lots of people are frightened when the other guy is in office, it’s the nature of the beast. People have different reasons for being concerned, but it’s actually a pretty pedestrian human emotion.  “Oh no…” the heart claims “this guy is so freaking out there the **** is going to hit the fan!!!”.  
 

Then of course, it’s 15 months later, the guy in the Clan of the Cave Bear costume is dealt with, and the guy some are convinced was the moronic yet incredibly cunning and secret genius behind it all is golfing at Pebble Beach (again). 
 

Anyway, your point on Mitt Romney.  Mitt comes around in 2024, a new improved scandal unfolds.   My guess would be “complicit in 1/6 insurrection/secret co-conspirator”.  Personally, I think he’s an empty suit, a bobble head who lacks the intestinal fortitude to play the game on the level it must be played.  
 

Here’s an example:    Mitt Romney, Republican, claims he would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and says the confirmation process is “awful”.   
 

https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/romney-calls-supreme-court-confirmation-process-awful/

 

“Awful”.  Wow, there’s a deep, intellectual and visceral response to a group of opposition senators painting a distinguished jurist with decades on the court as a serial sexual predator.  The opposition leadership attempted to destroy the man, his reputation and his family simply for being a conservative.  
 

Me?  I use “awful” to describe the service when the server brings my Reuben out and it’s cold and the bread is soggy on the plate.   
 

Mitt is the most presidential looking guy of the group, but he’s soft as butter and inspires no confidence from the base.  He did at one time, but that ship has sailed.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I can't relate to the part of someone's character that enjoys Trump's persona, but I like the rest of this. There has to be a better leader in the Republican party somewhere.

That’s interesting.  I find differences in perspective pretty cool, and find people to be pretty relatable if I hold myself accountable to being open-minded.  
 

 

[Jauronimo]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Lots of people are frightened when the other guy is in office, it’s the nature of the beast. People have different reasons for being concerned, but it’s actually a pretty pedestrian human emotion.  “Oh no…” the heart claims “this guy is so freaking out there the **** is going to hit the fan!!!”.  
 

Then of course, it’s 15 months later, the guy in the Clan of the Cave Bear costume is dealt with, and the guy some are convinced was the moronic yet incredibly cunning and secret genius behind it all is golfing at Pebble Beach (again). 
 

Anyway, your point on Mitt Romney.  Mitt comes around in 2024, a new improved scandal unfolds.   My guess would be “complicit in 1/6 insurrection/secret co-conspirator”.  Personally, I think he’s an empty suit, a bobble head who lacks the intestinal fortitude to play the game on the level it must be played.  
 

Here’s an example:    Mitt Romney, Republican, claims he would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and says the confirmation process is “awful”.   
 

https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/romney-calls-supreme-court-confirmation-process-awful/

 

“Awful”.  Wow, there’s a deep, intellectual and visceral response to a group of opposition senators painting a distinguished jurist with decades on the court as a serial sexual predator.  The opposition leadership attempted to destroy the man, his reputation and his family simply for being a conservative.  
 

Me?  I use “awful” to describe the service when the server brings my Reuben out and it’s cold and the bread is soggy on the plate.   
 

Mitt is the most presidential looking guy of the group, but he’s soft as butter and inspires no confidence from the base.  He did at one time, but that ship has sailed.  

Politicians used to be more reserved and understated types before our discourse resembled WWF promos.  I preferred it the old way.  Now we have members of congress who call their opponents the Jihad Squad in public forums and no one bats an eye.  Hogan vs. the Iron Sheik on the floor of congress.  

 

You can be strong and confident without beating your chest and throwing your own feces around like a gorilla.  I don't need fake bravado from my elected officials.  Biden's dementia tales of knife fighting behind the shed with corn pop and Trump's bully act do nothing for me.  I'll choose UFC all day for bravado and watch guys talk ***** and actually put it on the line.

[Andy1]

What I don’t understand is how anyone who speaks a word against Trump is immediately labeled a rino. Any deviation from total support of Trump is not allowed. If you are a public official, you can then expect piles of death threats from Trump supporters. This pattern has been repeated over and over with anyone who dares speak against the orange guy. Now there is a R candidate airing an ad busting into a house to kill rinos. Where does the insanity end? The glorification of guns and violence in political advertising is part of the problem. Some nut job is going to follow the hint.
 

Within the dem party, people speak out against Biden all the time, but they are not ostracized from the party. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

Politicians used to be more reserved and understated types before our discourse resembled WWF promos.  I preferred it the old way.  Now we have members of congress who call their opponents the Jihad Squad in public forums and no one bats an eye.  Hogan vs. the Iron Sheik on the floor of congress.  

 

You can be strong and confident without beating your chest and throwing your own feces around like a gorilla.  I don't need fake bravado from my elected officials.  Biden's dementia tales of knife fighting behind the shed with corn pop and Trump's bully act do nothing for me.  I'll choose UFC all day for bravado and watch guys talk ***** and actually put it on the line.

To the larger point, I agree.  It would be nice if the bs was eliminated. 
 

I do think the view that politicians of old were above it all is hyper-glamorized.  That is to say, I don’t think such animals roamed the earth in anything approaching large numbers.  It’s a nasty, ugly business and has been since before the infamous Burr-Hamilton duel.  
 

 

[SoCal Deek]

15 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

What I don’t understand is how anyone who speaks a word against Trump is immediately labeled a rino. Any deviation from total support of Trump is not allowed. If you are a public official, you can then expect piles of death threats from Trump supporters. This pattern has been repeated over and over with anyone who dares speak against the orange guy. Now there is a R candidate airing an ad busting into a house to kill rinos. Where does the insanity end? The glorification of guns and violence in political advertising is part of the problem. Some nut job is going to follow the hint.
 

Within the dem party, people speak out against Biden all the time, but they are not ostracized from the party. 

Okie Dokie…..now do Obama 

[BillsFanNC]

15 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

What I don’t understand is how anyone who speaks a word against Trump is immediately labeled a rino. Any deviation from total support of Trump is not allowed. If you are a public official, you can then expect piles of death threats from Trump supporters. This pattern has been repeated over and over with anyone who dares speak against the orange guy. Now there is a R candidate airing an ad busting into a house to kill rinos. Where does the insanity end? The glorification of guns and violence in political advertising is part of the problem. Some nut job is going to follow the hint.
 

Within the dem party, people speak out against Biden all the time, but they are not ostracized from the party. 

 

Manchin and Sinema have been treated ummm slightly less than friendly by their dem brethren.

[Andy1]

Yes Manchin is not liked. He is trying his best to steer the party towards moderation (which is would be a better course for them to follow). I don’t know what’s up with Sinema. The sane dems know that if Manchin isn’t holding office and doing his thing, a Trumper will take his place. While neither are stars of the party faithful, there is no where near the hatred and anger towards them as there is towards the dissenters in the Rep party. There are now many, many good solid republicans who have supported the party all their lives who are banished into no man’s land because they disagree with Trump. 
 

The dems are also not glorifying assault weapons in political ads. Guns in politics is a horrible combination that is not going to help our democracy.

[Doc]

3 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Are young people sitting out 2022? 

 

Yes, and 2024 as well.

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yes, and 2024 as well.

You wish…

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Okie Dokie…..now do Obama 

Ok - let’s hear it - lol

[LeGOATski]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s interesting.  I find differences in perspective pretty cool, and find people to be pretty relatable if I hold myself accountable to being open-minded.  
 

 

This isn't that, bud. I know when a d-bag is a d-bag. It's pretty cut-and-dry. I don't need to be "open minded" for that. See Jauronimo's post above.

2 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

Politicians used to be more reserved and understated types before our discourse resembled WWF promos.  I preferred it the old way.  Now we have members of congress who call their opponents the Jihad Squad in public forums and no one bats an eye.  Hogan vs. the Iron Sheik on the floor of congress.  

 

You can be strong and confident without beating your chest and throwing your own feces around like a gorilla.  I don't need fake bravado from my elected officials.  Biden's dementia tales of knife fighting behind the shed with corn pop and Trump's bully act do nothing for me.  I'll choose UFC all day for bravado and watch guys talk ***** and actually put it on the line.

Yeah, this is the age we live in. Just look at this forum with people constantly calling each other names like children.

[SoCal Deek]

9 hours ago, BillStime said:

Ok - let’s hear it - lol

Reading comprehension is your friend. Someone said only Republicans fall in line behind a specific leader and that if you openly criticize Trump, you’re an outcast. The same is 100% true of the Democrats with Obama….clear enough for you? The two major political parties are very much alike….even for those like you who choose to live in your DNC party line hypnotic fantasyland. 

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Reading comprehension is your friend. Someone said only Republicans fall in line behind a specific leader and that if you openly criticize Trump, you’re an outcast. The same is 100% true of the Democrats with Obama….clear enough for you? The two major political parties are very much alike….even for those like you who choose to live in your DNC party line hypnotic fantasyland. 

I don’t think that’s regularly true of either party. Hillary had detractors in the Dems and Biden can’t go a week without being called out by the far left for something. 
 

I don’t think the GOP had a cult of personality around Bush or Romney, but there is something about Trump that ignites a fanatical base. The current party seems to be that you’re either fully supporting Trump or you’re a RINO. There is no actual policy, there is only Trump.

 

It’s definitely not true of all Republican voters, but it is with enough of them to drive the party and I don’t think it’s healthy. 

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Reading comprehension is your friend. Someone said only Republicans fall in line behind a specific leader and that if you openly criticize Trump, you’re an outcast. The same is 100% true of the Democrats with Obama….clear enough for you? The two major political parties are very much alike….even for those like you who choose to live in your DNC party line hypnotic fantasyland. 

False

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

This isn't that, bud. I know when a d-bag is a d-bag. It's pretty cut-and-dry. I don't need to be "open minded" for that. See Jauronimo's post above.

 

I didn't suggest you needed to be open-minded, I just replied to a post where you offered your views on character and such.  In my experience, if I start shunning people with d-bagish tendencies I have to cut out many folks, including actors, musical artists and the occasional professional football player. It's not that I don't ever shun, I just selectively manage according to things that interest me, and try not to judge those who may have a different perspective.  In many cases, I find discussions with people who disagree with me enlightening or at a minimum, interesting. 

 

As for Jauronimo's post, I read and replied to it. 

 

As an observation, in reading your last two posts, this beloved television character came to mind:

 

 

 

11 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, this is the age we live in. Just look at this forum with people constantly calling each other names like children.

It's a shame when it gets nasty.  

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I didn't suggest you needed to be open-minded, I just replied to a post where you offered your views on character and such.  In my experience, if I start shunning people with d-bagish tendencies I have to cut out many folks, including actors, musical artists and the occasional professional football player. It's not that I don't ever shun, I just selectively manage according to things that interest me, and try not to judge those who may have a different perspective.  In many cases, I find discussions with people who disagree with me enlightening or at a minimum, interesting. 

 

As for Jauronimo's post, I read and replied to it. 

 

As an observation, in reading your last two posts, this beloved television character came to mind:

 

 

 

It's a shame when it gets nasty.  

Do you think Trump acted in a criminal manner in this episode? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do you think Trump acted in a criminal manner in this episode? 

What episode are you referring to, Tibs?  Holding the rally?  Suggesting the election was fixed?  Attempting, and failing, to use the legal system to review the outcome of the election? 

 

If you can be specific, I'd be happy to respond.  

[Tiberius]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What episode are you referring to, Tibs?  Holding the rally?  Suggesting the election was fixed?  Attempting, and failing, to use the legal system to review the outcome of the election? 

 

If you can be specific, I'd be happy to respond.  

No specifics. Just did you see anything that is criminal in your eyes? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

36 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No specifics. Just did you see anything that is criminal in your eyes? 

No. 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No. 

Ok 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No. 

Do you believe the President is above the law or that trying to steal an election is just something everyone does? Or something else 

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do you believe the President is above the law or that trying to steal an election is just something everyone does? Or something else