ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

I disagree with the main thrust of your post. You state, "It might have looked more two-sided if more Republicans would have participated. From pretty early in the process, it seemed clear that almost all of them did not want to participate."

The composition of the Jan 6 committee was illegitimate, and unconstitutional. It was not put together according to the rules of the House. "The Jan. 6 panel, which has nine members, has been criticized for its apparent partisanship, in part because the only two Republicans on the panel—Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Cheney—are both known for their strong opposition to Trump."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) selected Rep. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan to serve on this committee. They were rejected by Nancy Pelosi, and replaced with the two anti-Trump RINO's above. Pelosi's stated that “As legislation allows, I didn’t accept [Jordan and Banks] as they had made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of the commission of the committee.”

Pelosi had selected Kinzinger and Cheney after refusing to seat Jordan and Banks on the committee. So, the fix was in, and it became obvious from it's inception that this was not a fact finding committee, but a partisan witch hunt, with the goal of 1) abolishing the electoral college, 2) demonizing Donald Trump and stopping him from running again in 2024, and 3) covering up Pelosi's role in "allowing/facilitating" the insurrection to occur.

Banks said that the committee is “refusing to answer basic questions about January 6, in fact blocking these questions from even being asked questions that must be answered to keep the capital safe, and to prevent another riot or incident like January 6, from ever happening again in the future.” He listed some of the questions at the press conference.

“First of all, Capitol police officers we now know were half-staffed on January 6, ‘because of COVID.’ How is that?” Banks asked.

Banks asked about why some Capitol police officers were under-equipped, with some officers having had to use expired helmets or no helmets at all while they faced some rioters. He also asked why the U.S. Capitol police “never trained to deal with riots after all of the riots that were going on in the summer of 2020.”

“Did Speaker Pelosi communicate with the house sergeant at arms on January 6, or in the days leading up to the riot?” he asked in a fourth question.

“Five—was Speaker Pelosi involved in the decision to delay the National Guard assistance on January 6?” Banks said.

Maj. Gen. William Walker, who was then the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, said in March 2021 that deployment of guardsmen was delayed on Jan. 6, 2021, after the breach of the U.S. Capitol building, because of a memo issued a day prior that barred the use of the Guard’s “Quick Reaction Force” without approval. The memo was issued by then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Walker, who is now the House sergeant-at-arms, had said that if the memo wasn’t issued, he would have immediately sent troops to the Capitol following the breach. Instead, it took him over three hours to get the approval from Pentagon officials to deploy that day.

Pelosi on Jan. 6, 2022, told CNN that it was “inexplicable” why the National Guard took so long to deploy. She said that she, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), were on the phone “fighting to get the National Guard and it was very hard.”

Banks had three more questions he relayed to reporters on Wednesday.

“Six—why didn’t the Capitol Police intelligence unit raise the alarm about potential violence when they had evidence and intelligence for weeks leading up to January 6 that something violent could happen at the Capitol that day?

“Seven—why did the FBI deploy commandos to Quantico on January 3, with shoot-to-kill authority, but failed to send the U.S. Capitol Police a single threat assessment or intelligence bulletin?

“Eight—why did the House Sergeant-at-Arms refuse to cooperate with the Senate Homeland Security’s bipartisan January 6, investigation?”

Banks said that he and Jordan were prepared to ask the above questions if they had not been blocked from the Jan. 6 Committee by Pelosi. “Pelosi blocked us because she knows that those questions leave a trail of breadcrumbs right back to [her] office.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jan-6-committee-being-used-abolish-electoral-college-cover-pelosi-house-republicans

melloncolley

Yes, really! Like I haven’t seen enough of wrinkle puss Pelosi, mental Biden or “you would love to date-me” Cortez! Give me a break…heard enough lies to last me years! Seen enough screen shots of Cortez! Go away.

WEBCO

No, just Nancy Pelosi

robertv3

You write or quote:

"House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) selected Rep. Jim Banks and Jim Jordan to serve on this committee. They were rejected by Nancy Pelosi, and replaced with the two anti-Trump RINO's {sic} above. Pelosi's stated that “As legislation allows, I didn’t accept {Jordan and Banks} as they had made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of the commission of the committee.”

_Did_ Jordan and Banks make statements and take actions that would or might impact the integrity of the commission of the committee? I find it easy to believe that they did.

"partisan witch hunt, with the goal of 1) abolishing the electoral college, 2) demonizing Donald Trump and stopping him from running again in 2024" :

The partisan witch hunts that I've noticed have emanated from Donald Trump and Republicans who unfairly slur and blame lots of people for lots of things.

"abolishing the electoral college" -- I don't see the connection; and so this is probably an excursion away from the main topic of the Original Post. But if the electoral college _were_ abolished, I wouldn't miss it one bit. Rather than it, I would prefer a system in which each U.S. citizen's vote for president counts as much as any other U.S. citizen's vote for president. If the electoral college somehow gets abolished, maybe it's just because it _should_ be abolished.

"demonizing Donald Trump" -- the guy freely demonizes anyone and everyone at whim. Where do you think the idea of "hang Mike Pence" came from? Don't you just _hate_ that? I do. I bet Mike Pence does too. I can just imagine him thinking, "Gee boss, please don't ask them to hang me; I'm just doing my job." But if he said that, swarms of Republicans (Trump sycophants) would call him a "hater" and would say _he's_ "demonizing" _Mr._Trump_! ("Sorry boss, I was just trying to do my job without getting hanged by your mob. I apologize for trying to survive. I'll do better next time ((but how??))")

A lot of OPP posters and a lot of Republicans, and Trump, do a lot of hating and slurring. Someone should put a lid on Trump so that he can't keep stirring up trouble. Trump just made up the whole 2020 election problem.

American Vet

Hypocrite

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Which rhymes nicely with POS.

robertv3

Your choice of word reminds me of the most recent time I spent some effort discussing with you. Have you learned any more about what capitalism is?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Have you?

Capitalism refers to an economic system in which a society's means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

IOW, Capitalism is the engine of prosperity.

OTH, "Social­ism is a phi­los­o­phy of fail­ure, the creed of igno­rance, and the gospel of envy, its inher­ent virtue is the equal shar­ing of misery."

Remember that when the socialist shit hits the fan.

robertv3

What a silly couple of descriptions.

Your first sentence (after "Have you?") looks literally true but misses a lot of significance. Look more closely at who owns the means of production and who doesn't. Also: How did they acquire ownership? What was the original basis of ownership (much earlier in the chain of ownership)? Also, what is the significance of "the government"? Would it make any difference whether it were an autocracy or instead a democracy?

To literally answer your question "Have you?" {learned more about capitalism} the answer is no, or not much, or not recently. But I'm still convinced I know at least as much about it as you do (until you show otherwise).

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

No point in arguing with an uneducated simpleton, especially one who can't ask the right questions.

Try this:

Capitalism is often compared to other forms of governance, especially when the benefits of capitalism are discussed. The reason is that other forms have tried — and failed — to produce the kinds of economic and social success that capitalism brings. So capitalism isn’t just a “better” alternative to things like communism, socialism or even feudalism; it’s the “best” alternative. Here’s why.

Good Health

Thanks to the benefits of capitalism, every man, woman and child has the opportunity to eat fresh, wholesome foods every day. If you have an interest in a certain diet, like veganism, keto, gluten-free or paleo, you’re not only free to pursue that, but you have the variety of food choices available in grocery stores around the country. You also have the chance to exercise at will. Gyms are available everywhere, and they offer an astounding array of exercise facilities that cater to any number of fitness desires like spinning, kickboxing, Tai Chi, dance, and more. That’s all due to the fact that gyms can make money and profit from hiring trained instructors and selling gym memberships.

Social Contribution

It’s a misconception that capitalists lack a social conscience and that socialism — and altruism — are the only ways to guarantee social goodness. There are many, many companies that operate under capitalism that make significant social contributions. One obvious example is the Newman’s Own company. While profits go to charity, the company’s management and employees are well and fairly compensated for their hard work. Other employees and companies contribute to the social good, too. Even hairdressers contribute to a person’s sense of well-being. Governments operate programs that help underprivileged citizens. And tech giants contribute majorly to the employment market by sponsoring job training and hiring newly graduated kids out of college.

Professional Services Choice

Capitalism provides for a choice in professional services. Every person can pick and choose whoever they want to work for them. If you don’t like one company or the services it offers, you’re free to shop around and hire a company that gives you what you’re looking for in terms of professional services.

Healthy Competition

One of the biggest benefits of capitalism is healthy competition. Competition makes everyone better. When companies compete for business, they’re forced to provide a better variety of services or expanded services and give better customer service. Competition encourages growth. It encourages a company to find ways to improve, to not stand on its laurels and to reach for new heights of achievement. Competition is part of human nature. As long as humans compare themselves to others, there will be inherent competition in everything people do. In that way, capitalism is also an inherent part of being human.

Personal Freedom

Capitalism ensures the personal freedom to pursue your own dreams and goals. If you want to have a certain career, you’re free to take classes and enter that career, all thanks to capitalism. The classes will be available to you, and you’ll be allowed to hang a shingle for whatever business you want to go into. If you want to simply live in a cabin in the woods, you can do that, too. Personal freedom like this is only available in a capitalist society.
Ownership and Opportunity

With capitalism, you have the option of owning something, such as land, and turning that property into an opportunity, such as a farm, a rental property, or even an oil field, if the conditions are ripe. Ownership and opportunity are key features of capitalism. Without them, the future is severely limited.

American Vet

My choice of the word is spot on. Interesting to note you didn't try to refute it.

robertv3

Just now I've created a new Original Post. It has the title "Capitalism". So you can post about Capitalism there and it will match the subject heading.

I had mentioned Capitalism in the present thread in response to a poster who said "Hypocrite" without explanation, but I think he was calling me a hypocrite; and I didn't like that; and I remembered a recent long discussion with that same person about Capitalism (which he (or she) had brought up), and, recalling that discussion, I thought: if somebody here's a hypocrite, maybe it's him.

We're pretty far from the subject of the Original Post, but I notice I was the one who made the Original Post, anyway, so I guess I can do whatever I want in the thread.

Now back to your post:

You say, "uneducated simpleton". That's not helping the discussion. It just gives me an easy excuse to ignore you.

You say, "No point in arguing", and then you proceed to give a moderately long argument! You're pretty free with your insulting rhetoric ("No point in arguing with an uneducated simpleton"), apparently ready to sprinkle it around at the drop of a hat whether it makes any sense or not.

"Capitalism is often compared to other forms of governance". Who thinks Capitalism is a form of governance? I regard Capitalism as an economic system, and not a form of governance. I believe that in fascism the economic system overlaps more with the form of governance, such that the two are more inseparable from each other.

Here is the rough outline I use: Two of the possible forms of government are: dictatorship and democracy. Two of the possible economic systems are: capitalism and socialism. Considering only those, there would be (at the outset) four combinations possible:

a). dictatorship and capitalism

b). dictatorship and socialism

c). democracy and capitalism

d). democracy and socialism

I regard Russia as closer (than most countries) to dictatorship-and-capitalism-and-socialism. (Its economic system is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. It's often called communist, but communism is related to socialism, and I'm just using the more general term socialism instead of bothering to distinguish communism and socialism from each other.)

The U.S. is closer (than Russia) to democracy-and-capitalism. It has some socialism, but less than Russia has.

Scandinavian countries are close to democracy-and-socialism-and-capitalism, and are more socialist than the U.S. is.

"Thanks to the benefits of capitalism, every man, woman and child has the opportunity to eat fresh, wholesome foods every day." Not really.

"Competition is part of human nature." That's literally true. Do you think cooperation is also part of human nature?

"If you want to have a certain career, you’re free to take classes and enter that career, all thanks to capitalism." --

In some countries, education is free of charge. Vietnam's like that.

Vietnam has a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The whole country's been officially "communist" since 1975 and is more like a dictatorship whereas the U.S. is more like a democracy.

One person in South Vietnam, who is about 65 or 70 years old now, raised a family of 6 children, as a private small-business owner, in South Vietnam. The government disapproved of large families but he was able to have a family the way he did and operate the way he did by not taking a government job.

Now that they have grown up, at least some of his children do have government jobs now. At least two of them are teachers. At least one of them teaches in a university.

"Ownership and opportunity are key features of capitalism. Without them, the future is severely limited." --

"opportunity" is surely needed, but that's a tautology. It doesn't really say anything.

So you're saying that ownership is a key feature of capitalism, and that without ownership, the future is severely limited.

If you had said "tenure" instead of "ownership", I might have agreed with you. --

Then the statement would become:

"Tenure is a key feature of capitalism. Without tenure, the future is severely limited." I think that might be literally true; however, tenure might exist without capitalism.

I am thinking about land. Land is a very elemental means of production. Generally speaking, people need land if they are to grow food, for example.

In the U.S. one of our taxes is a tax on the land (what I'd call "raw land" (more technically I've heard it called "the site value of land")); and another of our taxes is a tax on the developments that have been made on the land (such as buildings).

If a person fails to pay the tax on the raw land, then the person will lose the land, which reverts to the government.

So we have a tenure system: as long as the person keeps up the raw land tax payments, s/he gets to keep using the land and can even forbid other people from going on that land. Since our raw land tax is low, it is easy to think of this as private "ownership" of land, rather than to think of it as "tenure" of land.

There is another way to think about this very important thing, land: We could regard land as belonging to the great mass of people ("the People"), and then there are "landholders" who have "tenure" to the plots of land that they pay raw-land tax on. They pay the raw-land tax to the "government". In a government "by" and "for" the people, the government represents the people and reflects the will of the people. The raw-land tax compensates the People for the private use of the People-owned land. (Or, if the raw-land tax is low, then maybe it only _partially_ compensates the People.)

As I mentioned, the raw-land tax is low (in the U.S., at least). In the U.S. most (or at least, a very large part of the) tax revenue comes from taxing people for earning, not so much from taxing people for holding land.

That situation could, someday, be the other way around: then in that case, most of the tax revenue would come from taxing people for holding land, and not from taxing people for earning.

Regarding "Capitalism", I think your definitions (after trimming away some gratuitous rhetoric) have been close to the mark (at least approximately), but maybe don't go very deep into significances.

I haven't tried to define "Capitalism". But I think I know at least two of its characteristics: 1. Capitalism is closely associated with a concept known as "ownership". 2. Capitalism involves accumulations of "Capital".

I feel agreeable to the idea that a society could have some capitalism and some socialism in it. It would be some sort of mixture of the two.

I have two definitions of "socialism". (By the way, I'm spelling it either way, with capital S or lower-case s, interchangeably.) For me, both of these definitions are true:

(A): Socialism is an economic system in which the workers own (or have tenure to) the means of production.

(
I just recently thought of the "or have tenure to" part.

When I say, "Socialism is an economic system in which the workers own the means of production", I am thinking of a means of production which is a factory or equipment or a building.

I think that socialism might also include private _ownership_ of _land_ (though I'm not quite sure about that yet) but I usually prefer to think of land as belonging to all the People en masse, with landholders having _tenure_ to the land.
)

(B): Socialism is a general idea of benefitting the mass of People as a whole.

(More emphatically, the _purpose_ of socialism is to benefit the mass of People as a whole, and the idea of socialism is _directly_ aimed to accomplish that.).

(The reader will please not be confused by commonly blurred thinking. In the U.S., the thought of "socialism" (along with "communism") is conceptualized as being closely associated with dictatorship. In the world, socialism really does sometimes, though not always, occur closely together with dictatorship, as in some aspects of Russia and China and maybe Vietnam. But the concept of socialism and the concept of dictatorship are two different concepts. It is important not to blur them together in the mind. They are distinct concepts. The two phenomena may or may not occur together in the world, but even when they do, they are not the same thing as each other.)

So, for me, socialism is a word with two meanings ((A) and (B)), which are related to each other and compatible with each other. It's like some words have multiple meanings in the dictionary, and usually the different meanings are somewhat similar to each other.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

You would be better served listening to what Kash Patel has to say on this issue:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/live-kash-patel-on-jan-6-timeline-trump-authorized-20000-national-guardsmen-two-days-before_4523407.html

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Try watching this instead:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/live-kash-patel-on-jan-6-timeline-trump-authorized-20000-national-guardsmen-two-days-before_4523407.html

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

19:29
"and now it turns out that the Schumer team, they received an FBI intel about possible violence. So they received this information, and they've did nothing with it. The capitol police deputy chief, Sean Gallagher, he emailed top Schumer aide, Kelly Fado, and now the senate's deputy sergeant of arms at 9 40 p.m on January 5th 2021,
saying he wanted to provide you visibility to new intelligence that an FBI threat analysis center had
received from a website owner according to documents attained by just the news. The information explicitly warned that demonstrators had detailed maps of the tunnels around the capitol frequented by lawmakers and their staffs, and they were plotting to create a perimeter for potential violence and to find democratic members early to block them from entering the capital. They had this information, and they still didn't call in the national guard. The whole thing right now as you can see from the documentation, from Nancy Pelosi, the documentation from Mayor Bowser,
from Schumer, they didn't do anything because it was a complete and utter setup."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0c37-GU2Q