team politics talking points.

[JohnRoberts]

Yes I am....

 

[hodad]

JR

PS: I started this thread to inspect political talking points to maybe inform and educate from a calm quiet place, not to participate in the partisan enmity.

You sound so sincere, John. And yet, what do you learn from anyone that posts here? Or is it simply that you’re right about everything and the rest of us are being so uncooperative by not believing your every word? I’m sure I sound like a jerk here, but my biggest problem with arguing with a large subset of conservatives is that they always want you to concede points to them, while they will never concede a point to you—no matter how strong the evidence. I know what I’m getting with JR, and many other conservatives—an unwavering and unassailable belief in their rectitude, no matter how wrong they may be.
*Personal anecdote: I’ve mentioned how much John sometimes reminds me of my crotchety right wing grandfather (rip). Years ago, my grandfather asked my airline pilot brother how a jet engine works. So my brother explains in detail, even drawing pictures to illustrate various details. So he finishes up and my grandfather looks at him and says, “That’s not how it works.” And that, largely, is how I feel political discussions with right wingers go: no matter how strong the evidence or how well presented the argument, it’s never how it works.

 

[Gold]

Always sure, frequently wrong.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken... (joke, I'm sure I've been wrong before).

JR

 

[boji]

[conservatives] always want you to concede points to them, while they will never concede a point to you

Pick whichever tribe one is in conflict with, and that outgroup should confirm that they (pejoratively) do more 'xyx' than one's ingroup, who are primed for less defensive posturing.

However, intransigence (refusal to compromise) weighted by party affiliation is interesting stuff. In the book, "The Righteous Mind", Haidt found correlations between personality traits and political allegiance. For example, conservatives by their nature tend to be more disagreeable and conscientious than liberals, who tend to express higher degrees of trait agreeableness and openness than conservatives.

 

[fallout]

Liberals? Agreeable? LMAO

 

[scott2000]

Liberals? Agreeable? LMAO

Disagree?

Kinda fascinating actually. Reminds me of that Rage song. "Heck yeah I'm gonna do what you tell me"...wait...
Now I'm confused....

 

[fazer]

We need a new term. I guess. Some people just have to much time on their hands for emotion posting.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There is so much more important stuff going on in the world, this seems like a mindless distraction.

JR

 

[boji]

Liberals? Agreeable? LMAO

Statistically higher in trait agreeableness, which is a double-edged sword.
Think about it in the context of history and it should make sense.

 

[Matador]

Speaking of dropping shoes, while not coming out of the bastion of legal integrity that is John Durham, a federal court rules that the crime-fraud exception likely applied in a series of emails between John Eastman and Trump (and his and Pence's attorneys) were releasable under the crime fraud exception.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

The Select Committee alleges that President Trump violated 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which criminalizes obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding.207 It requires three elements: (1) the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede (2) an official proceeding of the United States, and (3) did so corruptly.
...
(1) attempt to obstruct
- Together, these actions more likely than not constitute attempts to obstruct an official proceeding.
(2) official proceeding
- While there is no binding authority interpreting “proceeding before the Congress,” ten colleagues from the District of Columbia have concluded that the 2021 electoral count was an “official proceeding” within the meaning of section 1512(c)(2),221 and the Court joins those well-reasoned opinions.
(3) corrupt intent
- Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process. 238 And President Trump knew how to pursue election claims in court—after filing and losing more than sixty suits, this plan was a last-ditch attempt to secure the Presidency by any means....With a plan this “BOLD,”241 President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.

Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

#totalexoneration

 

[fallout]

"More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit."

 

[Matador]

Indeed, this was a discovery dispute. It will be up to the Jan 6th committee to make charges, but this very clearly lays out the standard to be met, and how that standard was met in this case.

 

[fallout]

@Matador you strike me as a pretty smart guy. Do you HONESTLY believe anything substantial is going to come out of this Jan. 6th stuff?

I'd like to know what outcome you're expecting.

 

[Matador]

Do you HONESTLY believe anything substantial is going to come out of this Jan. 6th stuff?

Hard to say: this seems pretty clear cut, but never again would I underestimate the ability of Democrats to f-up anything handed to them on a silver platter.

 

[fallout]

Regardless of which team you're cheering for, when you read "more likely than not", you should know where things are heading, or at least understand nothing is being handed over on a silver platter.

It's more likely than not that this will go nowhere.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is political kabuki theater to generate sound bites for the mid terms...

Do any of you guys play poker?

JR

 

[hodad]

This is political kabuki theater to generate sound bites for the mid terms...

Do any of you guys play poker?

JR

This cracked me up. After all your blather about CRT and cancel culture and voter fraud--who you callin' sucker, sucker? The unfortunate difference is that real laws that cause real harm have come from Republican kabuki this cycle. Consider that a few orders of magnitude more valid ballots were tossed out by Texas's anti-voting law than documented cases of voter fraud used as cover for passing that anti-democratic BS--and that's just in a primary. But those 5 cases of voter fraud are worse, right, because of those evil cheating Dems, right? Oh, wait, all those fraudulent votes were cast by Republicans, weren't they?
But hey--whatever it takes to disenfranchise tens of thousands of black and brown voters, am I right?

(EDIT: I should have noted the kabuki theater of Republican questioning of KBJ--they hit many of the high points of the current wave of right-wing hysteria--the CRT nonsense & the current "gays out of schools" & anti-trans themes were strongly featured.)

 

[boji]

 

[scott2000]

It is interesting to see the number of views on various threads. Takes like 15 years for some to catch as many as others. lol