Originally posted by Stoic
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Tucker's FBI conspiracy theory
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostCongress should not be involved regardless of who is charge. Period.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.
What did you find out?
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostOr 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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
Or, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that was an actual threat to our democracy.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
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
Or, they only wanted to focus on the political violence that was an actual threat to our democracy.
Comment
-
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.
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
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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?
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
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
It was inevitable that it was going to go too far.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM
|
5 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 02:27 AM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
0 responses
10 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
0 responses
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 10:08 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
28 responses
199 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 11:00 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
65 responses
462 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 10:40 AM
|
Comment