USSC strikes down Roe v Wade

[danmand]

I've been thinking that. Everyone knows that Congressional committee hearings are theatrical presentations with distinct partisan tones. But for some reason, when people have passionate views of the proceedings they lose sight of this.

I'm still trying to figure out if Cassidy Hutchinson was in the car. If she wasn't, why was her testimony of what happened in the car even considered?

She said that somebody told her what happened in the car. That is hearsay and should be of no interest to the commission.

 

[Valcazar]

Oops, Valcazar says the Republicans are making up the culture wars.

No I don't.
They are quite serious about their culture war.
What they are making up is most cases of how it is the Dems who are waging it.

Valcazar, I think you inadvertently made the point about "wokeism".

I know I shouldn't indulge you when you are being this ridiculous, but even in the most batshit insane version of the "wokeism" boogieman does anyone think it is an "ultranationalist" movement?

In the US it's a bit worst because they only have 2 side. It has become to the point you are either a left libtard or a dump racist republican.

Not much in between.

In canada we do not have such extreme polarization.

No. People themselves have lots of different ideas if you are actually talking about policy and what they want.
There are only two parties (and the system makes it virtually impossible to maintain a third party for any stability - it will very quickly be absorbed into one of the main parties or replace it) and that distorts the ability to have middling positions. (Theoretically, it is in the primaries where you fight out those internal contradictions.)

What you do have though is a very high level of negative partisanship in the US right now.

Though I'd update his statement to:
But yes, the MAGA movement is a call for palingenetic ultranationalism tied strongly to racial themes and a normalization of violence as a political tool using fascist messaging targeted at angry, unintelligent marks.

Not really a necessary update. I didn't pull the phrase "palingenetic ultranationalism" out of nowhere. It's directly tied to some definitions of fascism. (Defining fascism being rather difficult, of course.)

 

[Valcazar]

I don't know about that. Mitch is as establishment as they get and, along with Ryan, offered very little support to the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018.

Yes and no.
Mitch has his own agenda, and didn't support Trump on shit Mitch thought wasn't necessary.
Didn't push back in any meaningful way, because Trump had enough power to cost Mitch things if Mitch was too obstructive.
Ryan didn't survive Trump, Mitch did.

Mitch wants right wing Federalist society judges and tax cuts - he got those.
The Supreme Court is Mitch's victory but also had a lot to do with luck because the opportunity to steal a seat and the timing of RBG dying gave them the ability to put 3 on the bench.

Trump will have a much more pro-Trumpist caucus if he wins again - I would doubt McConnell stays as leader in that case - the Senators will know who is buttering their bread and vote him out.

 

[Valcazar]

You are grabbing on to a second-hand accounting of which she was completely honest about it being second-hand and told to her. She has been one of the most credible witnesses to date and the right fears it. The only hope is a smearing campaign which will not work!!!

Don't you understand?
Someone off the record saying that someone else is completely willing to testify (he just hasn't yet, but honest, he is totally willing, trust me) that the person who told her the story she recounted was lying when he told her the story means that everything she said is a hoax!

It's just basic logic, squeezer.

/s

 

[Valcazar]

That's why this is nothing more than a Star Chamber proceeding. There is nothing to balance the partisan skew. Ordinary voters may not make such a granular comparison to court proceedings, but they know a dog and pony show when they see one. That's why the vast majority of voters are ignoring this hearing.

Citation needed that "the vast majority of voters are ignoring this hearing".

BTW - you *are* aware it isn't a trial, right?
The fact it isn't a trial means the "defense" has unlimited freedom to offer whatever defense and refutation they like.
They don't even have to stick to evidence.
They have a whole network and social media to mount their defense with.

 

[Frankfooter]

Very true. That's what Chrissy Wallace did during the Kavanaugh hearing , too- without noticing that Who, Where and When were absent from her testimony. Where is Chrissy, now? LOL!!

Good point. Going off Murdoch's message will end your career at Fox. Only those willing to push the Big Lie may stay.

 

[Valcazar]

Fair enough, but I think you might have criticized suburban White voters for their lack of empathy for others. If so, that might just be a milder form of "if you vote Republican, you are a racist."

I think lots of suburban voters are shitty people.
I've lived in the suburbs before.
But that is very different from assuming they have the exact same politics as Trump's rural base.
A lot of them are quite racist. The US has a very strong racist streak from its founding and that's never gone away.
But that the two party system flattens out real nuance among some groups (and which of their cross-competing priorities weigh higher in a given election) is a real issue.

There are probably many people who voted for Biden out of personal distaste for Trump - "that gross man shouldn't be President" - more than any policy preference for or against him.
I don't think anyone paying attention can deny that.

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't you understand?
Someone off the record saying that someone else is completely willing to testify (he just hasn't yet, but honest, he is totally willing, trust me) that the person who told her the story she recounted was lying when he told her the story means that everything she said is a hoax!

It's just basic logic, squeezer.

/s

Of course the flip side of this is its also super easy to google Tony Ornato scandals' to check the trustworthiness of this new witness who may or may not testify under oath. For one, if he does testify he will also have to answer as to whether or not he did in fact tell rump that his Oath Keeper pals were there with weapons on Jan 6.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542150311858634761

 

[Valcazar]

She said that somebody told her what happened in the car. That is hearsay and should be of no interest to the commission.

Not at all.
What Engel and Ornato said happened is of interest to the commission.
What you should be asking is whether or not Engel and Ornato have said anything under oath to the commission themselves and if so, what?


Regardless, why are we discussing her testimony in this thread and not the thread about her testimony?

 

[jcpro]

[/QUOTE]
Prep

The amazing thing to me about the "so-called" January 6 hearings is the way that the media and pundits can so easily forget that the reason that real trials include such practices such as cross examination of witnesses, exclusionary rules of evidence, and right to call responding witnesses is that these practices are ESSENTIAL to any process pretending to be interested in arriving at the truth. Instead, the January 6 hearings are nothing but one side presenting the most slanted witnesses and evidence they can present, and then pronouncing their skewed presentation as "fact". Really shameful and embarassing, considering the number of lawyers sitting on the Committee.

That's why this is nothing more than a Star Chamber proceeding. There is nothing to balance the partisan skew. Ordinary voters may not make such a granular comparison to court proceedings, but they know a dog and pony show when they see one. That's why the vast majority of voters are ignoring this hearing.

The giveaway was when Nancy broke the long standing tradition and rejected McCarthy's appointments to the committee. From the get go this was designed as a vehicle to stop Trump from running in 24 and as an election issue. The Dems are not even trying to make this look legitimate and the 100% proof is their latest "witness". It's just like their "impeachments".

 

[jcpro]

Good point. Going off Murdoch's message will end your career at Fox. Only those willing to push the Big Lie may stay.

No, he lost his viewership when he failed to ask simplest of questions as a journalist.

 

[Frankfooter]

The giveaway was when Nancy broke the long standing tradition and rejected McCarthy's appointments to the committee. From the get go this was designed as a vehicle to stop Trump from running in 24 and as an election issue. The Dems are not even trying to make this look legitimate and the 100% proof is their latest "witness". It's just like their "impeachments".

Well, lets hope this all goes to trial and rump is allowed to call all the witnesses he wants.
If Ornato, under oath, testifies that nothing happened in the beast then the secret service driver will also have to be called to testify under oath.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, he lost his viewership when he failed to ask simplest of questions as a journalist.

Bwahahahaha!

If you won't push Murdoch's lies and hatemongering you can't stay on Fox.
End of story.

 

[jcpro]

Well, lets hope this all goes to trial and rump is allowed to call all the witnesses he wants.
If Ornato, under oath, testifies that nothing happened in the beast then the secret service driver will also have to be called to testify under oath.

Let's hope that it does go to trial in a real court with witnesses available for cross examination, discovery and REAL witnesses. We might even discover who Ray Epps is, who was paying him and why he wasn't charged and held without bail.

 

[jcpro]

Bwahahahaha!

If you won't push Murdoch's lies and hatemongering you can't stay on Fox.
End of story.

Oh, so you don't believe that who, when and where are important to journalistic integrity. It sure explains all your posts in here.

 

[WyattEarp]

Trump had a good economy that Obama left him. For the past 40 years economy have thrived under the democrats.

How do you account for the U.S. economic expansion from 1982-1992? There was a mild slowdown in 1990-91. Couldn't you say that Clinton had a good economy that Reagan and Bush left him.

Do you realize that Trudeau has presided over a long secular stagnation that was occurring long before COVID?

Knowing you from other forums, I know you want to be an objective, intelligent contributor unlike some members here. My suggestion take the emotion out of it. When something that confirms your bias sounds too good to be true, check into it more.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh, so you don't believe that who, when and where are important to journalistic integrity. It sure explains all your posts in here.

Wallace left because he wouldn't push fake news.
“I’m fine with opinion: conservative opinion, liberal opinion,” Wallace told The Times. “But when people start to question the truth — Who won the 2020 election? Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? — I found that unsustainable.”

 

[jcpro]

Wallace left because he wouldn't push fake news.
“I’m fine with opinion: conservative opinion, liberal opinion,” Wallace told The Times. “But when people start to question the truth — Who won the 2020 election? Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? — I found that unsustainable.”

Usually they say they're leaving chief anchor job for a streaming service to spend more time with.their families, but this also works. ROTFLMFAO!!!

Oh just for you, enjoy. Lol

Never Trumpers, Ex-Staffers Fall for Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony

Never Trumpers and disgruntled former White House staffers fell hard for Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

www.breitbart.com

 

[WyattEarp]

Blah, blah, blah... The Dems put another lying cunt in front of the cameras and got caught. Again. Hilarious just not quite covers it. ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Am I the only one offended by members throwing around the word "cunt" so liberally?

I might suggest "bitch" instead.

 

[Butler1000]

Doctors can't be required to perform medical procedures, regardless of what the price is or who set it, unless they have contractually obligated themselves to do so.

Thats what I said. Fact is we have enough willing ones its just not a problem.