BillsFanNC
-
Posts
23,500 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BillsFanNC
-
-
Gee, you don't say?
Every single person who merely slept through a virology 101 course knew this was a very distinct possibility from the very beginning.
But the magic of covid also turned everyone into expert scientists, many of whom advocated for what every scientist knows is a guiding principle of science:
Squelch dissent and questioning of the data.
-
10 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
I fully accept Biden won but to pretend that the 2020 election was up to the American standard is being a political hack of the highest order. We had improperly mailed ballots, ballots that were not collected properly or even maintained properly, we had ballots that were not verified properly, and the the count was not managed properly. To ignore all of this and state " most secure election in history" is more delusional than stating the election was stolen. As for Pence, I am thankful he did the proper thing, but what terrible things would have happened?
And what made all that possible began with states changing election laws by means other than via their respective state legislatures.
Explicitly unconstitutional.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, LeGOATski said:
I don't care how secure the election is. We can't let our guard down.
I'm concerned about that 25% who is NOT concerned about preventing cheating. What, you want a stolen election? There's something wrong with that.
That's not what the data said, because that's not how the question was asked. Nor was the question asked in a vacuum. Respondents were also asked about other issues and their concern about the economy, illegal immigration, violent crime and climate change.
HOW concerned are you about preventing cheating in elections?
75% of all voters answered "very" or "somewhat", presumably there were more options given that indicated less or no concern at all, but that data was not provided.
By the way, "it's the economy, stupid" once again wins the day with 91% of voters being at least somewhat concerned.
-
3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:
100% of voters should be concerned about preventing cheating.
Why, when we just experienced the most secure election in US history?
In other words, less cheating than has ever occurred ever in US history.
So the concern about cheating should be at an all time low if people truly bought that.
But you already knew that and missed the point on purpose.
Or you're just obtuse.
-
7 hours ago, LeGOATski said:
How do these results compare to past results?
Good question. I do not know.
Either way when 75% of all voters are somewhat or very concerned about preventing cheating in elections, then the 2020 mantra of it being the most secure election in US history absolutely did not resonate with voters across party lines.
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
Nah, it’s just that talking to you is like talking to a wall. There is no evidence or facts that can possibly penetrate, so I’ll only do it as long as it’s fun. There are other, more serious posters who actually add value to the conversation that I’d rather engage with.
If Donald Trump came out today and said “I did it. I wanted my supporters to overrun the Capitol and prevent the certification and I made sure that they did” you still would find a way to say it’s all a Dem conspiracy.
You mean like when he actually said on January 6th, 2021 in his own words and with his own voice for people to go to the Capitol and to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard"
What do you suppose the chances are that we will see or hear that exact quote and/or video entered into the committee record?
I'll go with 0.0 for the committee in search of the truth no matter where it leads.
You're a lemming clown.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
That’s just like, your opinion man.
And you sure do spend a lot of time discussing Jan 6th here for someone who doesn’t care.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Go outside and touch some grass, you’ll feel better.
Lol. This is all you got left?
Weak.
-
4 minutes ago, Andy1 said:
If Hillary Clinton can respect the investigative powers of congress and testify for 8 hours at the Benghazi hearings, there is no legitimate reason why Trump administration officials refuse to testify on this matter.
Well there were five real honest to goodness Democrats on that committee, including Adam Schiff.
So maybe if you put Jordan, Banks and MTG on this committee it would be a more apt comparison.
-
You know what else won't have any credibility about getting to the truth about J6?
The inevitable Republican appointed committee to investigate what happened on J6.
The truth, the REAL truth, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
I’m going with: I don’t know the answers and hope the committee addresses them. Since one of the teams on the committee was tasked specifically for this, we should expect them to give us info on it and call them out if they don’t.Your story seems to be that you already know everything the committee has and you believe the positions of people you know are lying to you because it aligns to your worldview and anyone who disagrees is a shill.
Once again, you’re just jumping to conclusions based on what you want to see and what people who *you know are lying to you* are telling you.
Spending a lot of time talking about something you say you don’t care about. You can prove you don’t care by just logging off and letting the adults have a conversation.
What part of the committee has less credibility than an Alex Jones Rachel Maddow lovechild don't you understand?
The fact that you're waiting on them to come to your conclusions tells everyone here all they need to know.
You aren't a serious poster.
And yet you arrived here all high falootin about being above it all.
-
3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-fbi-informant.htmlOnly Republicans have testified before the committee. The real divider isn’t between Dems and the GOP, it’s between who will testify under oath and who won’t.
The people who agree with you are all lying so they won’t testify. And when they do, they either say different things than they do in public or they plead the fifth. Because they are lying to you. And they know it.
And you obviously care about the committee because you are spending so much time here on PPP talking about it.
You’re game is weak as hell, man. Just give it up.
So you're going with the FBI is incompetent then. Im shocked. The FBI, the world's premier law enforcement agency, knows the plans of a dangerous group of unarmed "insurrectionists" ahead of time, yet they were powerless to stop them from marching to the Capitol in the first place, then breach the restricted area and finally against all odds actually break into the Capitol?
How about $5MM for that oceanfront Nebraska property?
You have no game. Zero.
-
There seems to be many on the left who remain unaware of the political shift that occurred in the GOP post 2016.
From the moment Trump won the GOP nomination the party spilt. You had traditional Republicans and then Rinos/Never Trumpers.
Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are and always have been squarely in the Rino/NeverTrump camp.
Rinos/NeverTrumpers oppose and hold in contempt Trump and his supporters every single bit as much as Democrats do.
So you can play word games and call this sham committee "bipartisan" all you wish. It's simply yet another example in a long line of examples of where you've been had, bamboozled, hoodwinked, duped, scammed etc..
The reality is that this committee is uber partisan on the only issue that matters: Disdain for Trump and anyone who aligns with him.
This is why not only is it not working, it's backfiring. The majority of Americans are more likely to believe the opposite of whatever stories this committee weaves.
-
1
-
-
-
And to think that we just had the most secure election in US history!
-
5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
You’re the one jumping to conclusions all the time, here. We have a bunch of people saying essentially “let’s see what the committee has” and you’re out here implying the FBI was in on it and that you already know everything they are going to present all while castigating others for jumping to conclusions.Mmmhmm. Again, any comment on "The Old Gray Lady" reporting on at least one FBI informant being present with the proud boys in DC as they were in the pre-process of an insurrection? Or are you waiting on the committee to tell you why the FBI could be so spectacularly incompetent?
It's on you if you're going to wait for a partisan sham committee to tell you what to think before "jumping to conclusions"
I don't give a rats ass what this sham committee says.
It ain't working dude.
-
-
10 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
How does it not compute? Some that were there were peaceful and along for the ride others, oathkeepers and proud twatz had a more sinister agenda. It's not that difficult. A lot of detail still needs to be provided, certainly why more security wasn't present.
Ok. So then maybe the rhetoric of it being the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War was just a smidgen overblown? Jumping to crazy conclusions just a bit?
Also, any comment on why the FBI was unable to thwart the dangerous Proud Boys when they had at least one informant in their midst that day texting the FBI real time updates as they marched towards the Capitol?
They knew they were coming to stage a coup and the friggin FBI couldn't thwart it? Please.
Let's talk about that Nebraska ocean front property.
-
2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
One thing I find interesting about this Ray Epps thing is he said the day before we must go into the Capital. Then he is right there when the first baracade was breached. Yet he didn't go in. Why not?
Maybe only certain fed CHS's were authorized to enter the Capitol without fear of being charged. Like this one.
-
7 hours ago, DRsGhost said:
Oh.
https://news.yahoo.com/proud-boys-member-fbi-informant-153441490.html
The records appear to show the FBI had advanced knowledge that Proud Boys members were headed toward the Capitol.
So let's get this straight, the FBI had informants among the proud boys providing them with information that they were heading to the Capitol to stage an INSURRECTION!
And yet they were helpless to thwart it. The FBI with all of its vast resources couldn't stop a rag tag bunch of LARPers from storming the US Capitol and staging an "insurrection" ?
So again either the FBI is extraordinarily incompetent.....
Or far more likely they were in on it. You know like in Michigan with the attempted "kidnapping" of Whitmer.
I suppose the NYT and Yahoo are not credible sources and provide "nothing of substance" here either.
No comments yet?
Fed informant with the proud boys on J6.
Knowledge in real time before they got there that they were marching to storm the Capitol and do the insurrection.
And the FBI failed to stop it.
How can this be? I mean cmon the FBI man!
I'm certain that the commission will address this as part of the law enforcement failures as well.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
One of the five investigative teams on the committee has a specific task of investigating the law enforcement failures.
So I would expect to see something about this at some point.
And that video I linked to above I 100% guarantee you will not be part of the story.
You can't have it both ways and call it an insurrection and the most violent attack on our democracy since the Civil War and also show videos like that and others. The qanon shaman is one of the poster boys for the "violent insurrection" and then you watch that video....
Im sorry, it does not compute. Quite the conundrum indeed.
-
Interesting too how that scene is being described as law enforcement being "overrun" by "insurrectionists" who simply stood there calmly discussing things with the police about remaining peaceful.
Such conspiracy theories!
-
2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Everyone has pulled out their jump to conclusions mat, assuming they know the answers to ongoing investigations.
I don’t know why some officers were standing around. Maybe since they were so outnumbered and overwhelmed at that point, they decided just to try to prevent violence instead of pushing people out. Maybe they were rooting for the rioters. Maybe they were incompetent.
I would like to see what, if anything, the committee has on this. I would like to know what, if anything, the DoJ is doing about it.
But what I’m not going to do is assume I know all of the information gathered in these investigations before it’s released or the hearings are done. Because that would just be partisan nonsense.
52 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:I think the most logical explanation for why some of those scumbags were let in is just as you pointed out, they were already outnumbered and overrun. There was no way they could have kept people out.
Of course I'm sure we'll hear 10 more conspiracies about what happened there before all is said and done.
We know multiple requests for extra security were denied before and during J6.
So then logically both of you agree that the commission will ask hard questions and provide solid answers as to why multiple requests for additional security were denied given that the security on J6 at the Capitol proved insuffucient. This is unacceptable, right?
I mean they were overrun, that shouldn't ever be allowed to happen and yet we know requests were denied. I'm sure we'll get answers though!
2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Everyone has pulled out their jump to conclusions mat, assuming they know the answers to ongoing investigations.
I don’t know why some officers were standing around. Maybe since they were so outnumbered and overwhelmed at that point, they decided just to try to prevent violence instead of pushing people out. Maybe they were rooting for the rioters. Maybe they were incompetent.
I would like to see what, if anything, the committee has on this. I would like to know what, if anything, the DoJ is doing about it.
But what I’m not going to do is assume I know all of the information gathered in these investigations before it’s released or the hearings are done. Because that would just be partisan nonsense.
52 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:I think the most logical explanation for why some of those scumbags were let in is just as you pointed out, they were already outnumbered and overrun. There was no way they could have kept people out.
Of course I'm sure we'll hear 10 more conspiracies about what happened there before all is said and done.
We know multiple requests for extra security were denied before and during J6.
So then logically both of you agree that the commission will ask hard questions and provide solid answers as to why multiple requests for additional security were denied given that the security on J6 at the Capitol proved insuffucient. This is unacceptable, right?
I mean they were overrun, that shouldn't ever be allowed to happen and yet we know requests were denied. I'm sure we'll get answers though!
-
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:
The committee is divided into five teams with different goals. One of those teams is focused solely on the law enforcement failures.
So far in the hearings, they’ve mostly been focused on the events leading up to Jan 6, with only limited testimony on the events during the riot.
I would expect that they get to the report out from the law enforcement team in one of the upcoming hearings.
😀
Don't hold your breath.
And by law enforcement should be "disciplined" you mean arrested and charged for aiding an insurrection, right?
I mean we've been told this was the worst attack on our country since the Civil War, right?
I don't recall stories of US soldiers standing around doing nothing at Pearl Harbor, do you?
I also don't recall many scenes from 9/11 where police and first responders stood around doing nothing, do you?
Why haven't these police officers been arrested and charged with aiding the insurrection?
-
12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
If police or others let them in, they should be disciplined too.And maybe questioned by this committee? Nah, let's leave that part out of the narrative.
I see several officers in the background standing around doing absolutely nothing to expel the "insurrectionists"
Why?
Voter fraud!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Maybe you just learned that in 2016. I certainly didn't. Russia. China etc. have been interfering in our elections for decades.
In 2016 there were Russian Facebook troll farms.
In 2020 states changed election laws by means other than their state legislatures (unconstitutional) in order to mail out ballots or applications to everyone on known corrupt voter rolls.
Prior to 2020 universal mail in ballots were codemned by both sides of aisle as a recipe for fraud. Including by Obama.
So no I wouldn't consider both scenarios "widespread".
Trumps government agencies!
Talk about pathetic.
Next.