Discuss.
Jan. 6th committee results
Discuss.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/polit...day/index.html
Former Attorney General William Barr said that Trump's claims of voter fraud were "bullshit."
Ivanka Trump said that she respected Barr and "accepted what he was saying" about the election.
Trump spokesman Jason Miller said the campaign data person told Trump in "pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose."
And the committee cited testimony from Trump campaign lawyer Alex Cannon, who testified he told Meadows by "mid-to-late November" that the campaign had come up empty trying to find widespread fraud in key states that Trump lost. Cannon said Meadows responded to his assessment by saying, "So there's no there there."
I wonder how her creepy, paedophilic dad is going to feel about Ivanka's betrayal.
My guess, from having lived with a narcissistic LSE mother, is that he will publicly ignore Ivanka's statements and will attack his accusers and everyone else who doesn't buy into his lies.Originally Posted by xerx
Ivanka is the only person whom he even marginally cares about, but even that could change if his dementia gets worse. Narcissists don't have friends and they hate themselves, so how do you think they feel about other people?
If you agree with a narcissist's gaslighting, or indicate that you like the narcissist, or even if you just suck up to them for personal gain, they conclude that you are sucking up to a person who is despicable (themselves, that is) and you, by your actions, are also despicable and contemptible.
I've said this before. I discovered at a very young age that my narcissist mother didn't love me. She simply tolerated my existence as long as I provided her with her narcissistic supply, and she made it clear that I was disposable if I didn't toe the line. Ivanka is in the same position. Jared might also be in that boat, but he is just a spineless weasel.
God, that's just sad.
I said MARGINALLY.
Sort of like the way you feel about that old sweater of yours, but you might like the sweater more than he likes Ivanka. Because you aren't as sick as he is.
You know, my father hated war, because he got to experience two of them up close and personal.
I hate narcissists for the same reason. Narcissists destroy everyone and everything they touch.
Does anyone honestly believe the committee will be fair and nonpartisan?
This is the same as Russiagate: some conspiracy theory based on absolutely nothing, and transparently just a partisan attack.
It sounds ridiculous if you actually say what you mean: the Republican (or Russian lol) plan to overthrow the government of the US was sending a relatively small group of unarmed obese herd animals to be allowed by police into one of the most surveilled and guarded places on earth. Fascism was then only narrowly averted on account of the police shooting a 35-year-old woman.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 06-10-2022 at 11:05 PM.
Maybe the committee's actions will lead to the hanging for treason of the conspirators and instigators. This would certainly seem, to the condemned, to be unfair to the condemned, but it happens.
The conspirators of the great conspiracy to shit on Nancy Pelosi's desk?
Fair? I don't know. But non-partisan? Sure, why not. Both Bill Barr and Ivanka were appointed by Trump.
Neither of them are on the committee, which is comprised of 2 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The "charge" is ridiculous in the first place, and Russiagate is another reason not to believe this will have anything to do with historical reality.
It's not as if the committee is censoring their (Bill and Ivanka's) opinions.
All I've seen is their being asked about their opinion re. election fraud, and their responses to those questions are politically useful to amplify, not to censor.
If those two are using the opportunity to condemn the show trial, I haven't seen it, but it A) it wouldn't mean anything -- about half the country already thinks it's a farce, and nothing is going to change that; B) the mainstream media here would devote 10x the coverage to le epic "betrayal" of Trump (as if those two aren't sociopaths and are acting from some deep-felt sense of propriety) to any criticism, however justified, of the committee.
They went in without any apparently purposeful activity, like a dog that finally caught a car it was chasing.
LIVE: Footage played in Thursday’s hearing showed a meeting between Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right Proud Boys, and Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the anti-government Oathkeepers militia on the eve of Jan 6.
"Well, it's inevitable what's gonna happen. We just gotta do it as a team, together, strong, hard, fast."
https://twitter.com/malachybrowne/st...DRmaup1s0qAAAA
"And one of us has to take that dump on Pelosi's desk."
.
Well if that one clip of a few sentences with no context isn't irrefutable proof of a shadowy conspiracy to overthrow the US government by means of overweight unarmed morons I don't know what is.
By the way, did you know that before January 6th, the FBI had at least 4 top-level informants in the Proud Boys?
Did you know that Enrique Tarrio has a history of being an informant for law enforcement?
No one said these guys were smart.
Who, the FBI?
Edit:
So it's strange how the "stupidity" of intelligence agencies has a strange way of always working in their favor. The FBI "failed" to stop a group of people from co-ordinating to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6th. These people, despite supposedly being violent extremists who managed to outsmart the FBI, accomplished nothing and hurt no one in power, and the only political result of the event was that the same political group which had previously been the greatest protesters of police brutality and were saying things like "all cops are bastards" suddenly came to support the FBI and fetishize the political process they'd been beginning to question.
You might notice similar results from other "failures" of intelligence in recent decades.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 06-11-2022 at 01:12 AM.
FBI looks down on ppl who get traumatised working for them trying to solve cp cases, if they seek therapy/help
the nature of the agency suggest they are conservatives anyway.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Last year, Senate Republicans blocked the creation of an independent commission for Jan. 6th: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...17_1_00218.htm
So the House established a select committee instead: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...ution/503/text
Pelosi gave McCarthy the power to nominate 5 Republicans for the committee. His nominations included Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Jordan and Banks objected to certifying the election results on January 6th. Furthermore, Jordan privately called Trump and spoke with him at length on the morning of the insurrection. He also met with Trump back in Dec. 2020 to discuss plans for overturning the election results on Jan. 6 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...lection-449787).
Pelosi rejected McCarthy’s nomination for Jordan and Banks for the reasons outlined above, and McCarthy pulled all five Republican nominees in response. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2
Having no Republican nominations from McCarthy, Pelosi appoints two Republicans to the panel herself: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-s...ffb4042f9bd5db
So yeah, if you’re wondering why Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney are the only two Republicans on the panel, that’s why.
Damn my dude, you really are getting it from my end. If people truly understood the extent of the surveillance state and how it functioned we'd get one of two outcomes. Either they give into the sin of despair as it literally is everywhere an conceivably capable of fucking you in particular over just because it is truly massive enough to spare resources for such a minor operation...
Or we help the "normies" along and force them to realize that such a thing actually exists. Their gut reactions will do the rest as they then automatically go on what would amount to a justified and actually accurate witch hunt.
I've mentioned it before but, well, protestants really do fuck it all up. No true witch can pass a witch test. They literally cannot, even mockingly, utter a sequence of words that amounts to confessing that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead.
It never occurred to the puritan witch hunters to even try that before condemning innocent folks to death. Their faith was, ironically enough, lacking.
The FBI needs literally God-Hating people to fill its ranks at this point. They (those who don't categorically hate God) get traumatized because, well, imagine catching your boss banging an 11-year old, doing what is only right by reporting that to his/her superior, and then nothing happens.
Now imagine you had some form of faith in your own government's institutions. Yeah, that's now been shattered in the worst way. Now imagine a person who didn't break but rather got rather fucking angry about that.
If I have not spelled it out before this post I'll do so now. Terms like "Conservative", "-Istaphobe", "X-supremecist", etc. are in truth simply another term for "Heretic". Those folks are daring to utter a heresy. A heresy against the Globalist "Gospel". A Gospel that is ultimately Satanic.
The devil is real and he rules the world. Too bad for him Christ is king of the universe and while the devil indeed is enjoying his hour to the fullest he cries in agony at the fast approaching dawn of God's full day...
No. I can't deal with this anymore. Every time I open up one of these politics threads I feel physical pain as I read through bad take after bad take. One more and I'm gonna pull a ducki and never come back here again.Discuss.
As a representative of the FBI proud boys deep state liberal establishment, I'm begging you guys, please, stop having opinions. It's hurtful, bad for you health, and makes everyone you talk to not like you.
There is a strong incentive to claim there was no voter fraud.
He could be, even if he doesn't realize it himself. The copy he reads every night isn't entirely written by him, it would be silly to assume that. I'm sure he has some creative control, but I think the extent of his involvement is setting the tone and his team of writers and researchers fill in the blanks, which would leave a lot of room for the insertion of hidden agendas and manipulated information. The mainstream media itself has to be considered compromised, no matter which side of the aisle their reporting falls on. The moment it became ok to politicize every bit of news that comes across the editor's desk was the moment the media was bought and paid for. The moment journalists and anchors were permitted to cast off any illusion of objectivity in their reporting of events was the moment corporate media became tools of the state. I don't know how accurate "deep state" conspiracies are, but it is plausible to me that many of the elements are in place.
To tie all this back in with the events of January 6th and the committee deliberations, I have little faith the committee will find anything close to the truth. They might brush against it, come close to it, but they won't quite hit the mark. I'm also struggling to care or find significance in the January 6th riot. I don't see how it benefited Trump, I think it's easy to see how his words played right into the hands of hindsight analysis and so the media just went with the low hanging fruit. Was it a covert action by government provocateurs? Maybe. I'm not dismissing that idea completely. We've been doing shit like this in other countries for decades, the CIA alone has had a lot of time to perfect and hone the craft (although they are not always successful, as we saw in Venezuela). I'm not saying the CIA is behind this, their focus is international, not domestic. I don't know who is responsible. I, too, however, am suffering from fatigue. I see the footage of the riot, but the weight of the matter fails to land with me. I guess I'm desensitized by the years (at this point) of BLM riot footage, it just doesn't deliver the amount of shock and hype to my system that people are trying to convey.
Tucker knows exactly what he's saying. He's been the person he is for a long, long time.
That was my favorite Jon Stewart moment. I'm not particularly impressed by any of the talking heads on any of the networks.
A substantial chunk of the rioters had ties to activist / extremist groups (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...sts-proud-boys) and weren't "ordinary" folks who just happened to be there.
What's an extremist? From the article:
Extremism is not due to the presence of a single risk factor or criminogenic indicator, like unemployment. It is not typically a product of psychopathy or rare personality disorders. Rather, it is a result of a cognitive, social and behavioral process by which seemingly “normal” individuals from various walks of life and socioeconomic backgrounds adopt views that justify the use of illegal means, including violence, for achieving political, social, economic or religious goals. It often involves the formation of communities of like-minded individuals who mobilize one another to action. These are the dynamics that were on display at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
I don't much about it, and I wasn't a huge Donald Trump fan, but I think he got way too much negative, undeserved, often untruthful feedback that really showed how so many of his critics on the left weren't very smart (e.g., loudly asserting that he was an idiot or only of no more than average intelligence without knowing how iq tests, psychometrics work and what human abilities correlated with general intelligence, that he couldn't have done anything without his father... his IQ was certainly at least 125, if not 140 at its peak and while his father did help him, and while he did make mistakes, he also recovered independently at times and multiplied what wealth he inherited many times over, taking inflation into account, more than 4x over), and too little positive feedback for what good he did do (he was the least hawkish and much more diplomatic than pro-war and just downright cautious on foreign policy president after jimmy carter and of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan was president when I was born) compared to, say, Bush 43 and Bill Clinton.
I mean, if Obama's justice department closing bank accounts of poor female prostitutes and what he and his admin did to edward snowden, julian assange and so many others doesn't make Obama an authoritarian or someone who is was against change while claiming to be for it, then nothing makes anyone an authoritarian... Obama was actually far more far right than Trump was (regulations especially sopa and pipa which were censorship and corporate welfare, drug raids, eco-fascism, increasing health care administration and costs associated with that, surveillance, state secrets, pro-corporate pro-establishment business bailouts, overthrowing Muhamar Gadhafi, adhering to the time table about Iraq exit rather than leaving immediately, etc., etc). Majority rule, democracy, whatever you want to call it can be very authoritarian/against civil liberties whatever you want to call them, and I'm just glad Hillary Clinton wasn't president with her neo-conservative sympathies and I suspect some closet misogyny ,saying "I beat out the beauty queens", "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian Asset", "Frankly, I see little girls dressed in ways I think are very inappropriate, parents have to draw the line, where do you draw the line", that she pretended the opposite of or even tricked herself into thinking otherwise just so she could have power over both females and males and make failed attempts to redistribute wealth because she didn't understand economics, her attempts at reasoning was always lacking details and she really wasn't very high IQ, she was a mediocre or even below average lawyer, mediocre secretary of state, mediocre at image and public speaking; the actions she would've taken would've been maniacal and her proposed policies were ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
"Illegal according to who?" I don't agree with everything Noam Chomsky says, but he covered this very well in the Chomsky-Foucault debates on human nature, which can be read for free. Even in cases where something is not even against a written law, show trials can be held anyways. But in many cases, laws seemingly contradict other laws, so someone is left choosing which one they think takes precedence. I think there is almost certainly only one possible set of non-contradictory laws and probably the one we have isn't it, which would imply that everyone is breaking minor laws all the time sadly and no one can do anything about it but also no one can care.Extremism is not due to the presence of a single risk factor or criminogenic indicator, like unemployment. It is not typically a product of psychopathy or rare personality disorders. Rather, it is a result of a cognitive, social and behavioral process by which seemingly “normal” individuals from various walks of life and socioeconomic backgrounds adopt views that justify the use of illegal means, including violence, for achieving political, social, economic or religious goals. It often involves the formation of communities of like-minded individuals who mobilize one another to action. These are the dynamics that were on display at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Oh, I'd be very shocked if there wasn't a "show trial" component to the January 6th hearings. Very few politicians succeed by not criticizing their rivals, and it's very possible, and almost certainly the case, that the hearings' primary aim is to weaken Donald Trump's re-election chances.
It's also very possible that Donald Trump is guilty of what he's being accused of. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Last edited by xerx; 07-26-2022 at 04:51 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
