robertv3

You say, "Robert, PLEASE follow JRs advice."

I might have completely skipped over it, but I'll go back and at least look at it, only because you asked me to.

robertv3

One thing I can say for you is that at least you read.


In a recent post, I mentioned that I see a "pattern". Here is a quick rough draft of it:

1. A significant number of Republicans take, as a major political position, that government is bad.

2. They don't distinguish much, among the different parts of government, and just what's bad. This is as though they wanted to fix a piece of machinery such as a clock, and their attempted solution is to beat on it with a hammer until they destroy it.

3. Let's say the machine is a clock. They could learn about clocks. But they think it's wrong to learn about clocks. Too much learning might brainwash them to be part of a clock. After all, if they know about clocks, then they must be part of the evil clock conspiracy. (Those last two sentences are satire.)

4. By electing someone like Trump, they fit points 1, 2, and 3 above: (1) & (2): Trump rails against government,
and (3) Trump's not part of the evil conspiracy because he's never served in government and has been so separate from government that he doesn't know much about it. (That's also satire.)

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Quote from Robert:
"1. A significant number of Republicans take, as a major political position, that government is bad.
2. They don't distinguish much, among the different parts of government, and just what's bad. This is as though they wanted to fix a piece of machinery such as a clock, and their attempted solution is to beat on it with a hammer until they destroy it.
3. Let's say the machine is a clock. They could learn about clocks. But they think it's wrong to learn about clocks. Too much learning might brainwash them to be part of a clock. After all, if they know about clocks, then they must be part of the evil clock conspiracy. (Those last two sentences are sarcasm.)
4. By electing someone like Trump, they fit points 1, 2, and 3 above: (1) & (2): Trump rails against government,
and (3) Trump's not part of the evil conspiracy because he's never served in government and has been so separate from government that he doesn't know much about it."

I can see how you might view it that way, but you are wrong. Not ALL government is bad.....but it is mostly being DONE badly. And that is not just a Democrat thing....the Republicans are not any better at it. The primary difference in the parties and their take on federal government is that the Democrats WANT a big powerful government so that it can correct all the things they see as wrong or unfair or injust. And they are constantly trying to expand government both in scope and in power. Rinos go along with this. The problem is that people are not smart enough or wise enough to predict and control economic and physical forces. Their attempts always results in more harm than good.
Conservatives, both Republican and Independent, believe in the Constitution and the premise of a federal government that is very limited. Primarily the feds should see to the country's defense, international trade, a functioning and efficient post office, and a few other things. NOTHING else, unless it is specified in the Constitution. SPECIFIED!....not implied or suggested. That is what the founders designed the Constitution to do, and that is the way our country should be run. Altering that is what has this country in such sorry shape. The majority of political power should be in the hands of the state government, where WE THE PEOPLE can watch and control our elected officials better.

robertv3

To be more fair, perhaps I should admit that I only looked superficially, and did not delve into, the advice. Also:

Let me set aside the technicalities over who got k**led how and when, because I'm not really willing to read the counterarguments. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I were to concede that Ashley Babbit's death is the only actual occurred death that is relevant to the discussion. Then, I refer to the entirety of the public hearings of the Select Committee of J****** 6. What do you think of that? What do you think of the videorecordings and the testimonies, as seen in those hearings? How do you evaluate the significance of all that? I think it gives a pretty good reckoning and explanation of the meaning of the things that happened on J*** 6 _and_ a lot of the meaning of the 2020 e******n, those things altogether as a whole.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I did not watch all of the hearings. I did not even watch a majority of them. Instead, I followed both leftwing and rightwing articles about what they said was important. Many of them I delved into a little deeper. The REASON I did this is because early on in the hearings statements were made, and I followed them. I was appalled...even though I wasn't surprised. When I reviewed opinions on them, things were so distorted that it was ridiculous. One guy for example, testified that Trump watched the J6 r**ts on TV. It was THEN reported that "Trump laughed and chuckled as people were being hurt in the i**********n attack on our free e******n system."
I H**E lies and intellectual dishonesty. Someone who lies to themselves can not be trusted with two nickels.
Okay. I got that off my chest.
To answer your questions, the overall impression I got out of the J6 hearings is no different than what I believed after over a year of watching videos and analysis of the r**t.
Here are the facts:
There was a HUGE peaceful rally supporting Trump.
There was also an angry mob at the capital.
Trump made his speech to the rally.
People at the capital building became aggressive and violent.
Trump finished his speech, and left.
The march to the capital building began, and when they got there, the capital had ALREADY been breached, and the r**t was in full swing.
In my opinion:
The r****rs were stupid, and criminal, and should be punished. But the administration should NOT be violating their civil rights! People are being charged with trespassing after being held for a year and a half without bail. This is appalling, and unConstitutional.
Many people were hurt, and one k**led, which is not unusual for a r**t. I think security was woefully and criminally lax. I have my opinion of who is responsible, and it is NOT Trump.
Did Trump say a lot of angry words about the Democrats over the past four years? Of course. That is politics. Was his words any more d******e or angry than his Democrat opponents? Absolutely not! The left was FAR worse. I was there and I saw it every day. Did Trumps words add to a general climate of anger at the Democrats? Of course it did. But less so than the four years of non-stop petty, lying, deceitful attacks HE had been subjected to. Not to mention the h**xes and conspiracies launched against him. Did Trump 'plot' an i**********n, or even a r**t, at the capital? Absolutely NO evidence of that. NONE. Did A FEW of Trump's supporters get together and 'plot' what they wanted to do to make the maximum impact on the r**t/protest? There is significant evidence that that did happen, but no connection to Trump.
All the opinions given (testimony under oath) and the paltry physical/circumstantial evidence presented as 'proof' only adds up to one thing.....the ONLY way Trump can be said to be in ANY way 'responsible' for the events of J6 is to claim that he contributed to the general attitude of anger of his v**ers. But his 'contribution' was far FAR less than what the Democrats said and did to Trump from 2016 through 2020, and continuing on today.
In my opinion the J6 commission should be shuttered. If they haven't proven anything so far, they never will. Also, IMO, the whole reason for the commission is to keep attacking Republicans by attacking Trump. I suspect this will continue until 2024.
Sorry this is long winded, but you DID ask my thoughts.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

In a nut shell (preferably pecan) the reason the Democrats can’t stand Trump and his supporters is they don’t back down when attacked. The Democrats are not accustomed to someone standing their ground, especially when their attacked. Not one Democrat is smart enough to figure this out. Including Biden. The great uniter Biden’s recent words to the American people just strengthened our resolve.

robertv3

As near as I can tell, your analysis here is pretty good. (Even so, I feel sure there's something not quite right about it. Meanwhile it does seem internally consistent. Maybe it's leaving out something important.) I think you make a mistake with the word "always", though: you say "Their attempts always result in more harm than good."

The 50 states are closely bound by at least one thing I can see: the way the e*******l college is used to elect a national president. In this matter, what happens in some states may greatly affect other states.

Some of the things I value appear best done in a large group (like a nation) rather than in a small group (like a state). For example, I'm over 65 and I get social security payments and medicare benefits, and those are both national, and I value those (so did my parents and most people who have reached 65). I also value environmental protection and the space program, and I view those as national, and better done as a nation rather than by each individual state. The Constitution, as you seem to hint, is a more spare document than to specify social security, medicare, environmental protection, and the space program, all of which _I_ (for one) think are important and worthwhile and better done by a nation than by a smaller entity. And all four of those things weren't even invented when the Constitution was written. With that in mind, I think a national government _is_ and _should be_ more than just what its original founding document has written in it.

The U.S. Constitution (and presumably some other Constitutions around the world) has been flawed; it used to count black people as three-fifths as much as a white person, and I call that a serious flaw. It illlustrates that it is nothing more than a human-made document subject to human flaws.

The word Constitution gets thrown around a lot these days, and I think that's unhelpful, as the word is used more than the principles. There are various principles that the Founders considered, and some of the principles were very good, and some of the principles weren't so good. The three-fifths rule about black people (presumably partly based on the idea that black people were "worth" less than white people) wasn't so good. One can look at a good principle, maybe "separation of powers", "checks and balances", or "separation of church and state". People could think about such principles, and think, "Why did they come up with this idea?" and "Is it a good idea?" But people can say "Constitution" without understanding the principles of a good government.

If they don't understand the principles, then the v****g public and the government will all erode and become degraded. Then we'll have something else, not what the Founders intended, but the people will still say "Constitution" and will still say "Democracy" and "the greatest country on earth" regardless of whether it even degraded into a dictatorship.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I understand the point you are making, and I will return the comment that I think you are internally consistent. And of course the Constitution did not start out perfect. That is why there is an Amendment process that has been used dozens of times.
The Constitution is WHAT makes America the greatest country on Earth. But it is useless unless IT IS FOLLOWED. THAT is the worst and most tragic thing the Democrats do.....constantly seeking ways to work around the Constitution, or flat out willfully and knowingly violating it, instead of working within it OR seeking an Amendment to modify it. The despicable left has done more damage than a thousand 'Trumps' by the one act of weaponizing our Judiciary to avoid following the Constitution.
If the Constitution is honored and obeyed, there can be NO tyrants, no dictators, and no authoritarian administrations. WE THE PEOPLE should DEMAND that our Constitution be followed.
The left has accused Trump, for over six years, of 'attacking' our 'institutions' because he legally argues with dictates and demands from his political opponents. And all the while they have been openly ignoring or working to circumvent the foundation of our Republic....the Constitution.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

Bullseye!

microphor Loc: Home is TN

That's absolutely true.

robertv3

Not bad. This was not too long-winded. I found: it's readable, some of it might be right, and maybe at least half is sort of plausible. Thank you for considering the matter and letting me know what you think about it.

Near the end, you say, "If they haven't proven anything so far, they never will." They "haven't"? (Your statement seems to imply that they haven't.) That depends on your standard of proof. If your standard includes that 10 (or wh**ever the required number was to make an impeachment conviction happen) Republican Senators v**e "proven" for a conviction against Trump, then even a great real proof would fail (or they might just refuse to consider it, or even refuse to let it be shown in their trial).

But anyway there's something nonpartisan (which even looks nonpartisan) that I can say, too, which is that legal cases (_and_ other processes that reveal t***h) do sometimes take years -- sometimes many years. (Even some divorces, including mine, take years to complete.) What sometimes happens is that real justice eventually happens but it takes several years for the matter to get to that point as it winds, year after year, through the court systems. This can even happen when there was a strong enough proof early in the process but the judges either didn't take it seriously or blocked it.

I've been in criminal courts too, fortunately not as a litigant. Attorneys and even some judges, sometimes, stop, block, or delay a case for a long time, sometimes effectively forever, or judge wrongly in a case, and sometimes they don't have good reasons for what they wrongly do. If you got close enough to some of the things I've seen and heard, you would probably see and know this for yourself. I almost said you just _would_ see and know this for yourself. But then I remembered that you don't see some things that I think are obvious.

I would suggest that you go back and watch the J*** 6 hearings entirely, but I realize they would not be as palatable to you as they are to me. It's been pretty easy for me to watch them entirely. As you've seen, I don't watch, read, or listen to everything that's presented or suggested on OPP, so it would be unreasonable of me to expect somebody else to do so.

A person could think that the J*** 6 Select Committee public hearings on what happened J*** 6 are "important" enough to make oneself watch them entirely. But there may be a counterargument to that.

From what you say, I think you did not watch the same videos of the r**t that I did. Basically what I watched was shown in the J*** 6 public hearings.

Where you say, "When I reviewed opinions on them, things were so distorted that it was ridiculous", that hinges on where you're watching or hearing the opinions. There can be a vast difference between one opinion outlet and another. The testimonies in the hearings are a more original source than are the opinions about the testimonies in the hearings. And, the people giving the opinions aren't subject to the same level of accountability as are: the people giving sworn testimony, even in person, to the J*** 6 c*******e congresspeople, in public hearings.

You say:

'One guy for example, testified that Trump watched the J6 r**ts on TV. It was THEN reported that "Trump laughed and chuckled as people were being hurt in the i**********n attack on our free e******n system."'

You didn't precisely say what you think about that. Just before it you said "ridiculous", and just after it you said, "I H**E lies and intellectual dishonesty." If you mean the following, that the statement:

"Trump laughed and chuckled as people were being hurt in the i**********n attack on our free e******n system."

was a lie, you could save some time by more directly saying so. I (and many other people) do not think it was a lie. We think it (or some similar statement) is true. And more than one person gave sworn testimony to similar effects. I don't remember hearing the words "laughed and chuckled", but even that is believable, and not much different from testimony I heard in the hearings. And, to help judge how plausible it is, consider the kinds of things Trump does and says: consider Trump's record: This week, for example, he has publicly said that he can declassify documents just by thinking it. That isn't, and shouldn't be, how the system for classified documents works. I'm curious what you think about that statement he made. (Don't just hear other people's opinions about it, view at least one recording showing him actually saying the words. Here's the one I see: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hannity-presidents-can-declassify-documents-thinking-about-it )

(
Back to that statement: "Trump laughed and chuckled as people were being hurt in the i**********n attack on our free e******n system." I notice that you didn't say _who_ made that statement. Just before it, you have the words "It was THEN reported that". You don't say who reported it. It looks like it could have been the same person who "testified that Trump watched the J6 r**ts on TV", or it could have been _anyone_ who "then reported" that "Trump laughed and chuckled as people were being hurt in the i**********n attack on our free e******n system." Maybe it was some newspaper reporter; but anyone can "report"; the word "report" can mean "to say that something happened."
)

I might not be able to keep up with the discussion though, as I'll be traveling all next week.

Again, thank you, for providing better discussion than many other people do.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I don't remember who specifically made those particular comments. They were part of the general "interpretation" of the testimony about Trump's activities on J6. The point is, of course, that what was testified to under oath was biased to begin with, then exaggerated and amplified openly by the left. As I watched left wing AND right wing reporting of the highlights of the committee, I can say that this was very typical of the way the left reported. Testimony comprised of impressions and opinions were treated as gospel t***h when presented to the public.
Be safe in your travels, and have a good time! I have enjoyed debating with you. THIS is what I was looking for when I joined OPP. Reasonable people discussing issues as they seek the t***h. As I told another poster, I despise lies and distortions. I have little patience with those who practice such. Beliefs should be based on t***h and factual evidence. Thank you very much for helping me in my search for the t***h.

federally indicted mattoid

Excellent debate. Well worth reading. I originally joined for the same sort of discourse.

It sounds as if you still won't watch the hearings, if I read correctly, yet you want avoid lies and distortions. Have you considered the fact that the testifiers are under oath? Most were Republicans and members of the administration of your favorite president.

Think about it. Another hearing next week, I understand.

Safe travels Robert

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Liberal logic from a Liberal simpleton

Are you still backing Joe, and what he has done to our economy?
Inflation at a 40 Year high.
The current invasion on our southern border?