Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Tucker's FBI conspiracy theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    So do you agree that congress should investigate the January 6th riot?
    I think they should have spent their time investigating the riot instead of trying to impeach someone over an event they clearly still do not have much of a grasp on.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Congress should not be involved regardless of who is charge. Period.
      Yep. Heck, the very idea that someone involved in the incident (as a 'victim') should be involved is simply nonsense. There's a reason cops aren't allowed to investigate a crime committed against them or a family member and someone else has to do it. Same should apply here.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seanD View Post

        That argument never made much sense to me.

        Maybe you take folks like Maddow and Stelter credible and thus rely on their every word, but I would imagine most conservatives on here don't take anyone "seriously." At least I can say this of myself. It's not the messenger, it's the message. I don't need to rely on the credibility of the messenger when I can research for myself whether the message they convey is credible or not. I just need the messenger to give me information I may not have been privy to, like the message Tucker just relayed that I didn't know about prior.
        So you've researched the claim that unindicted co-conspirators must be government agents?

        What did you find out?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          I could trust a bipartisan group of senators to set it up and then let it go. Yes, there's always the follow on question of "how can you be certain that THIS group of people won't be partisan." And there's always the risk. You can set it up so that there's equal Dem and GOP members in the set-up group, and that to appoint someone to the actual investigation it has to be a 2/3 vote. That would ensure that whoever ends up on the investigation was able to be approved by both GOP and Democrats. If the two sides can't even agree on investigators, it would go a long way towards showing that the investigation is more about partisanship than it is about really finding the truth.

          But, we've seen over the last two administrations what a "bipartisan" style of investigation does. The two sides don't agree, and they end up putting out dueling partisan investigation reports, whichever side had the majority puts out the official one (and it of course supports their side), and the minority side puts out a rebuttle report (which of course supports its own interests). Then partisan supporters latch on to the results that their side produced, and nothing really happens.
          Stoic ?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
            I could trust a bipartisan group of senators to set it up and then let it go. Yes, there's always the follow on question of "how can you be certain that THIS group of people won't be partisan." And there's always the risk. You can set it up so that there's equal Dem and GOP members in the set-up group, and that to appoint someone to the actual investigation it has to be a 2/3 vote. That would ensure that whoever ends up on the investigation was able to be approved by both GOP and Democrats. If the two sides can't even agree on investigators, it would go a long way towards showing that the investigation is more about partisanship than it is about really finding the truth.
            Or it could mean that one party doesn't really want the public to know the truth.

            If such a process had been followed with Benghazi, and the two sides couldn't agree on investigators, would you have concluded that the investigation was more about partisanship than it was about really finding the truth?

            But, we've seen over the last two administrations what a "bipartisan" style of investigation does. The two sides don't agree, and they end up putting out dueling partisan investigation reports, whichever side had the majority puts out the official one (and it of course supports their side), and the minority side puts out a rebuttle report (which of course supports its own interests). Then partisan supporters latch on to the results that their side produced, and nothing really happens.
            I would rather have dueling partisan investigation reports than no investigation at all.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post
              Or it could mean that one party doesn't really want the public to know the truth.

              If such a process had been followed with Benghazi, and the two sides couldn't agree on investigators, would you have concluded that the investigation was more about partisanship than it was about really finding the truth?


              I would rather have dueling partisan investigation reports than no investigation at all.
              As for evidence of partisanship. Republicans wanted to expand the scope to cover the rise in political violence that culminated in Jan 6th. Democrats refused, saying that, in effect, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that made republicans look bad.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                As for evidence of partisanship. Republicans wanted to expand the scope to cover the rise in political violence that culminated in Jan 6th. Democrats refused, saying that, in effect, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that made republicans look bad.
                Or, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that was an actual threat to our democracy.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  Or, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that was an actual threat to our democracy.
                  Right, because the months liberals spent literally destroying their own communities through theft, vandalism, arson, and murder was harmless.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    Or, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that was an actual threat to our democracy.
                    Which is like having a 20 suspicious house fires in 1 neighborhood in 2 months time, but thinking the only one of any importance investigating is the one where someone died.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      As for evidence of partisanship. Republicans wanted to expand the scope to cover the rise in political violence that culminated in Jan 6th. Democrats refused, saying that, in effect, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that made republicans look bad.
                      What’s to investigate about the antifa/BLM protests?

                      I’m not saying there were no bad actors and opportunists, but they were obviously a reaction to perceived violence by police against black people.

                      We need to know if the MAGA traitors planned their insurrection in advance or were motivated to violence by Trump.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Backup View Post

                        What’s to investigate about the antifa/BLM protests?

                        I’m not saying there were no bad actors and opportunists, but they were obviously a reaction to perceived violence by police against black people.

                        We need to know if the MAGA traitors planned their insurrection in advance or were motivated to violence by Trump.
                        Well, were the riots pre planned, were they motivated by the words or actions of politicians like AOC, Waters, etc. More importantly, did the deliberate and implicit condoning of the political violence, including lax prosecution, create an atmosphere in the country that made an incident like the 6th, not only more likely, but inevitable.. This is, after all, a congressional investigation, not a criminal one.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          Well, were the riots pre planned, were they motivated by the words or actions of politicians like AOC, Waters, etc. More importantly, did the deliberate and implicit condoning of the political violence, including lax prosecution, create an atmosphere in the country that made an incident like the 6th, not only more likely, but inevitable.. This is, after all, a congressional investigation, not a criminal one.
                          The antifa/BLM protests may deserve an investigation, but that is a totally different issue than the MAGA insurrection.

                          Obviously protests against police abuse is different than storming the White House trying to overturn a free and fair election.

                          This is obviously just whataboutism. Why are right-wingers trying to divert attention away from the insurrection? What are they trying to hide? All of those Republicans congressmen who are trying to sweep this under the rug were awfully shook up right after it happened. They are exposing themselves to be the worst kind of cynical hypocrites.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                            So you've researched the claim that unindicted co-conspirators must be government agents?

                            What did you find out?
                            I only needed Tucker for the information that so-called fbi "informants" that miraculously escaped prosecution were involved in the January riots. I didn't know that and thanks to him now I do.

                            It's my opinion that they were actually working for the fbi based on my research of fbi behavior in the past, how they engaged in similar activity and provocations with Muslim terrorists, and how they engaged in similar activity and provocations throughout history, especially the civil rights era. It's their MO.

                            But that's just my opinion, and I don't need Tucker's opinion to shape mine. I just need him to relay information to me that I didn't know. That type of info I'm certainly not going to get from Maddow or Stelter
                            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                              Which is like having a 20 suspicious house fires in 1 neighborhood in 2 months time, but thinking the only one of any importance investigating is the one where someone died.
                              It's more like having a bunch of suspicious house fires and one suspicious fire at city hall, and thinking the one that should get more than the normal investigation is the one at city hall.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Backup View Post

                                The antifa/BLM protests may deserve an investigation, but that is a totally different issue than the MAGA insurrection.

                                Obviously protests against police abuse is different than storming the White House trying to overturn a free and fair election.

                                This is obviously just whataboutism. Why are right-wingers trying to divert attention away from the insurrection? What are they trying to hide? All of those Republicans congressmen who are trying to sweep this under the rug were awfully shook up right after it happened. They are exposing themselves to be the worst kind of cynical hypocrites.
                                Its not whataboutism. Its pointing out that political violence has been on the rise since Trump was elected. Violent political protests and counter protests with explicit or implicit support of politicians happened all over the country. Lax or lenient prosecution of felonious assault, attempted arson, etc set precede that this type of behavior was tolerated.

                                It was inevitable that it was going to go too far.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 07:21 PM
                                9 responses
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 01:13 PM
                                10 responses
                                76 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by MaxVel, Yesterday, 09:03 AM
                                29 responses
                                179 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post MaxVel
                                by MaxVel
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:59 AM
                                30 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-22-2021, 05:50 PM
                                35 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X