Fishing expedition by 1/6 commission

[Isaac]

@Pat Hartman Yes totally agree, just adding that the fact checkers are so biased themselves

But yes - I have read looooong CNN articles claiming to delve into things like "the 50 lies during Trump's lasts speech", or the "the lies during the state of the union", etc. etc. And as you are saying, it is easy to see that the fact checkers are very confused about what constitutes an in-scope statement to begin with. 95% of Trump's so-called "lies" aren't even eligible for the whole evaluation to begin with - they're either mild exaggerations (even that being a bit subjective), or they're statements of opinion.

Compared to Biden whose dementia has been obvious (even other countries have SNL-type skits making fun of him) since shortly after he was elected, refusing to do press conferences, pre-selecting all questions, shaking hands with people who aren't there, constantly forgetting who the president is and calling Kamala president, asking reporters where they are, confusing names of countries, and general inability to form a coherent sentence or two..........To Trump, whose enemies feared us as they ought and showed an energy to get practical things DONE - there's no comparison.

If I had to choose I think I'd rather have a president who uses a lot of hyperbole and is a bit grandiose but gets tons of stuff done, over one who has no idea what's going on at all.

But can we please have DeSantis/Owens ticket. That would be unbeatable. Candace is a better debater and question-answerer than literally almost any other person - male, female, black or white - that I've ever seen on the conservative side. We need her on the ticket!

 

[Steve R.]

But can we please have DeSantis/Owens ticket. That would be unbeatable. Candace is a better debater and question-answerer than literally almost any other person - male, female, black or white - that I've ever seen on the conservative side. We need her on the ticket!

An interesting proposal. I hope that Trump will put aside some ego and endorse a younger generation of conservatives. Moreover, Trump's political capital is in jeopardy. Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is real and highly contagious. Even with Trump out-of-office, Democrats and the media continue with their fanatical irrational ambition to destroy Trump. Based on that, should Trump run, Trump Derangement Syndrome will metastasize, like Covid, into new virulent forms. A new conservative team will minimize that potential.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Candace is too young to be president. Otherwise I like the ticket.

The fact that Trump is still living rent free in the heads of the Democrats means the attacks will never stop. They've already started hammering on DeSantis just in case. When all you have are lies, it really doesn't matter who the Republicans run. Granted, Trump is a big target but don't for a minute think there would be a truce unless the party nominated Chaney. And the Dems would probably tear her apart with lies also. She'd be very disappointed in her buddies if they thought she had a chance at winning.

 

[Steve R.]

Candace is too young to be president.

Candace was born on April 29, 1989. She will attain the age of 35 on April 29, 2024. The election won't be till November, but I assume the minimum age restriction must actually be achieved on Jan. 20, 2025 which would be inauguration day.

By "too young" are you actually referring to Candice experience and not age?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I forgot the election wasn't for two years

 

[piano_playr]

My current "favorite" (not really) lie is the one the Democrats and those-who-do-their-bidding are constantly saying right now (yes @moke123 and @piano_playr probably even 21 times a day somewhere!)

Are you calling me a liar?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't know what lie Issac was referring to. So I don't know if you repeat it daily.

But, is someone who repeats untruths a liar? Does it matter if they know that what they are repeating is a lie? Can they cover themselves by saying "I heard"? How do you determine what is a lie? Is a lie some statement of fact that you disagree with? Would you need actual proof to call a statement of fact you disagree with a lie? Is a lie some opinion you disagree with? If you disagree with the opinion, is the other person lying? How do you know it is not you who is lying? What makes you the arbiter of "truth" when it comes to judging opinions?

 

[piano_playr]

But, is someone who repeats untruths a liar?

How does one know the untruths are not factual? Evidence?

Does it matter if they know that what they are repeating is a lie?

It matters if what they are repeating cannot sustain itself under scrutiny. In order words, if you have no proof someone or something happened, does it suggests it might not be true? Does proof consist of "Who actually saw, heard, felt, counted or named the thing..."?

"It is often very illuminating...to ask yourself how you got at the facts on which you base your opinion. Who actually saw, heard, felt, counted, or named the thing, about which you have an opinion? --W. Lippmann

Can they cover themselves by saying "I heard"?

Absolutely not! Herein lies the problem.

How do you determine what is a lie? Is a lie some statement of fact that you disagree with? Would you need actual proof to call a statement of fact you disagree with a lie? Is a lie some opinion you disagree with? If you disagree with the opinion, is the other person lying? How do you know it is not you who is lying? What makes you the arbiter of "truth" when it comes to judging opinions?

It's more important to establish what is true. This is always hard. Our justice system tries to do this with the right to a trial by a jury of peers. Most of the time they get it right. Sometimes not.

Yes, it does require proof to call a statement a lie even if I disagree with it.

I personally don't pretend to be the arbiter of truth when judging opinions. I have my own opinions and am responsible for demanding evidence to sustain my views.

I was reluctant to post to this thread because I did not want to offend anyone or be labeled. Unwittingly, I succeeded in accomplishing the latter. My participation benefitted me by seeing how myths get perpetrated into so-called facts.

So, Pat… I agree with most of your points. Even so, I am more concerned about the division in our citizenry. We should work harder at examining events with unbiased eyes and avoid looking for validation of preconceived views.

 

[Isaac]

Are you calling me a liar?

I'm calling anyone who goes around saying that Republicans' abortion restriction laws are preventing ectopic pregnancies from being safely handled a liar. Only you can say whether you fit that category

 

[Isaac]

Most of the time they get it right. Sometimes not

Out of curiosity, how do you know they do not?

You yourself just posted a reminder that your opinion needs to be strongly informed by those who saw, heard, felt, etc.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The citizenry is divided because big tech and the Democrats are colluding to shape the opinions of the population and some people are fighting back. Isn't it Fascism when the government is controlling businesses to do their bidding? Is having the White house tell FB and Twitter who to censor the same as the government censoring directly? Is telling Delta to force its pilots to take an experimental vaccine that isn't going to prevent them from getting COVID or from spreading it if they do get it the same as the government imposing the edict directly? They can't do that because the Constitution prevents it but that didn't stop them did it? I'm not sure how firing all the pilots who didn't take the jab makes anyone safer. It is simply the state forcing a company to exert the force on people that the government technically can't do itself?

Is this what actual Fascism is? The state using corporations to impose its will on the public?

 

[piano_playr]

Out of curiosity, how do you know they do not?

You yourself just posted a reminder that your opinion needs to be strongly informed by those who saw, heard, felt, etc.

I am resisting looking at your posts as attacks on me personally. The thread is not about me. We have a good justice system. I prefer it to anything I've seen elsewhere. If a higher court overturns a ruling from a lower court, then the lower court got it wrong. It's not for me to decide whether the original ruling was right or wrong. I can only say rulings get overturned. What is your point about the "You yourself..." sentence? I stand by my statement on the importance of basing opinions on proper evidence.

 

[Pat Hartman]

We have a good justice system

We used to have a good justice system. Now we keep political prisoners and prosecute people based on whether we approve of their politics or not as well as on the color of their skin.

It's not for me to decide whether the original ruling was right or wrong

If you read the rulings of the Supreme Court, you can form an opinion on whether you think the ruling was based on the Constitution or on how they "feel" about the subject. Don't listen to the talking heads. They didn't read the ruling, they're just repeating the talking points of the puppet masters.

There are several things that I will never forgive President Trump for but the most important is that he opened my eyes to how corrupt the media is and how the deep state controls the country. I always knew that politicians said whatever they thought would get them elected and then voted based on what their big donors wanted but I didn't realize the deep down corruption of the DOJ and the FBI. That is terrifying to me. If we cannot rely on our justice system, what is left? If we don't prosecute people who lie to the FISA court because we don't like the evil orange man so it is OK to lie about him because he MUST be guilty of something, we just haven't found it yet but we will find it if it takes 100 years and 20 impeachments how can you say we have a "good" justice system?

I say the corruption is deep because not a single employee of either the FBI or DOJ has come forward to denounce allowing the liars to go unprosecuted. They are also quite OK with letting their former leaders go on national television and spread lie after lie after lie.

 

[NauticalGent]

Now we keep political prisoners and prosecute people based on whether we approve of their politics or not as well as on the color of their skin.

Very true, but what most people fail to realize it that it was Bush's "Patriot" Act that made it "legal". Every POTUS since has kept it in place, including the Dem's poster boy, Obama. When he was called on it, he all but admitted that it was unconstitutional but promised "I'll NEVER use it."

AYFKM!!?!

We have been sold down the river - ALL of us - and we want to pretend its the other side of the aisle's fault and as soon as we get "our guy" in there, things will get better. In Colonel Slade's words: "What a crock of SHIT!

 

[Pat Hartman]

That is one of the four things I will never forgive Trump for. He KNEW about the abuses. Hell, they were used against him. The people who had lied to the FISA court had already been outed and the DOJ refused to prosecute the liars and STILL Trump renewed the act. The Democrats are just plain crazy and their ideas over time have gone from bad to evil. The Republicans in office are feckless pieces of dog do do and no matter what they say to get elected, they vote with the Democrats. I'm pretty sick of it. People like McCarthy and McConnell and several other RINOS MUST be primaried if they are up for election and deposed.

There are several groups working to call a Constitutional Convention. The primary goal of the convention would be to set term limits on elected officials.

 

[Isaac]

I am resisting looking at your posts as attacks on me personally. The thread is not about me. We have a good justice system. I prefer it to anything I've seen elsewhere. If a higher court overturns a ruling from a lower court, then the lower court got it wrong. It's not for me to decide whether the original ruling was right or wrong. I can only say rulings get overturned. What is your point about the "You yourself..." sentence? I stand by my statement on the importance of basing opinions on proper evidence.

At this point whenever you're faced with a question you'd rather not answer, you seem to deflect and try to make it personal.

I guess I have to conclude you are just not willing to answer the questions I've asked you (which was only based on something you said - that sometimes our justice system "gets it wrong"), which you have chosen not to elaborate on it and instead accuse me of personally disliking you, or something along those lines.

Cheers

 

[Isaac]

as soon as we get "our guy" in there, things will get better.

I prefer to look at things on a specific-issue-basis. Some things are actually known to GET better with conservative principles applied.
Generally this has been along the lines of personal responsibility, work opportunity, and overall fiscal restraint. Of course, this has been watered down in recent years because there is no use asking for the Farm when you can't even get your hands on a Horse yet.
Crime would be another one. Everybody knows what happened to NYC when Guiliani came, it's no secret.

 

[Steve R.]

We have a good justice system. I prefer it to anything I've seen elsewhere. If a higher court overturns a ruling from a lower court, then the lower court got it wrong. It's not for me to decide whether the original ruling was right or wrong. I can only say rulings get overturned.

Our justice system is under attack. When the US Supreme Court makes a decision that those on the "left" do not like, they make irrational hyperbolic demands like packing the court under the Orwellian claim that they are "balancing it". That is a logical absurdity since conservatives could also demand that the court be re-balanced through additional packing. The left never seems to accept -->"we lost one; lets role-up our sleeves to see if we can win in the future". This is what the conservatives finally accomplished after 50 years of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Look at the actions of Chuck Schumer, a US Senator who threatened the US Supreme Court should it make the "wrong" decision. First, Schumer is a US Senator. He may legislate law, but it is the Court system that evaluates whether that law is or is not in compliance with the Constitution. So Schumer is threatening another branch of government. Very unprofessional. Schumer should be thanking the Court and then saying that he would begin to work on legislating law that would be in compliance with the Constitution.

Also, lets take a brief look at the Jan 6th's Committee clown show. Yes, it not a "court" so one can make the empty white noise that things such as due-process and evidence aren't all that material. But the people on the Committee, are members of Congress with most of them being lawyers. Based on our country being bound by the rule-of-law, this Committee, even if not a "court" should follow due-process. No attempt was made to adhere to the rule-of-law. All the members of the Committee were personally selected by Pelosi for their hatred of Trump. So we have an ersatz "court" that picks on a person based on hatred. Sounds like McCarthyism. The is a clear case of the Stalinst practice of: "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime." Do you support out political leaders using this type of Stalinist practice?

 

[Isaac]

Democrats are terrified that abortion having been returned to duly elected Legislatures will require them to debate the issue on its merits.

 

[Steve R.]

Democrats are terrified that abortion having been returned to duly elected Legislatures will require them to debate the issue on its merits.

Indirectly, that also points to why the Democrats want to use the Judicial system as a means to implement legislation without actually discussing it. Which leads to the reason why the Democrats want to pack the courts with "leftist" judges who will make decisions based on ideology, not the Constitution. Ketanji Brown being the most recent devotee to the cause now on the Supreme Court.