ChiGoose

I have absolutely no idea what your point is but that is about on par for the braindead drivel I see on this board every day. In any case, if your point is that the GOP is poised to take control of Congress despite the January 6th insurrection, then I think it speaks pretty poorly of American voters.

They made it abundantly clear that Trump was told he lost the election, that his closest advisors knew he lost and told him so. They even have Bill Barr saying the whole Dominion voting machines thing was totally made up. They also showed videos of the “peaceful protest” where cops were assaulted and had live testimony from one of the police officers who was knocked unconscious. They also had testimony from some of the people from the riot saying they were only there because they thought that Trump told them to be there and to take action. Also, because they are idiots, the Proud Boys invited a documentarian to film them and he brought video evidence of the planning and violence.

Well, I’m genuinely curious because people who watch Fox News generally know less about current events than people who watch no news at all. So what’s the purpose? I’m assuming it’s emotional but would love to hear it from an actual Fox News viewer.

Oh no! Super clever! You really got me! What an incredibly insightful and powerful statement!

I have a hard time understanding why people watch Fox News. Is it like how people used to eat lead paint?

Thompson: *eloquent speech invoking Lincoln* Cheney: No mercy

Ok, so once again, a criminal investigation by the FBI is completely different than a congressional investigation. They have different purposes, standards, rules, evidence, and burdens. I think the DoJ is too chickenshit to charge Trump for very clear obstruction of justice. I would guess it's because they want to "restore legitimacy" to the institution and going after a former president would result in accusations of political bias. I think there is nothing they can do to avoid accusations of bias at this point and they should focus instead on enforcing the law. I mean, the FBI has always been seen as a more conservative organization (like most law enforcement) but there are people out there who believe they were in a conspiracy to elect Hillary effing Clinton. People will believe whatever they want, but the DoJ should not care about that and just do its job instead. The January 6th committee is a congressional committee. It is not a criminal investigation. It does not have to follow the rules and restraint that the FBI does. It also can decide on its own what evidence to provide as opposed to needing to go through the adversarial system of a court and judge. The stated purpose is to understand why January 6th happened and how to stop it in the future. Whether or not they are able to achieve that is something we will have to see, but it is COMPLETELY different than a criminal investigation. This stuff really isn't that hard to understand. It is absolutely befuddling to me that people continue to conflate the two very different types of investigations.

You literally put quotation marks around the word evidence when talking about the Mueller Report. As to why Trump hasn't been charged yet, that's the big question. Mueller basically wrapped an indictment for obstruction in a nice pretty bow but the DoJ does not seem to be taking it. I have no idea why that is, but if I had to guess, I would say it's because they are chickenshit. I don't think what Trump did was "the worst thing ever" but it is abundantly clear that he broke the law: we have the evidence for multiple charges, but the people at the top seem to be playing politics and care more about the reputation of the DoJ than justice itself.

I don't know if you're simply acting in bad faith or really just struggle with comprehension. If you take Mueller's conclusion that there was no conspiracy with the Russians but then you say that the evidence is bunk, then you're just arguing in bad faith. If you conflate collusion with conspiracy, then you either do not understand the legal issues at hand, or are once again arguing in bad faith. Either Mueller's report is trustworthy or it is not. To agree with the conclusion but dismiss the rationale and evidence is asinine. Mueller documented that the Trump campaign was absolutely crawling with Russian contacts but there was no legal remedy available as there was not an actual agreement with the Russians and Mueller felt he could not charge a sitting president with obstruction of justice. To say that means Mueller cleared Trump or his campaign of any wrongdoing is... dumb.

Do we need to go over the definition of conspiracy again? Because claiming that Mueller cleared Trump and then dismissing any of the evidence that Mueller compiled against Trump and the campaign is disingenuous. This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp unless you work very hard not to.

It really feels like 90% of the arguments made on this board are in bad faith.

Holy hell. THAT is your logic here?! By this logic, Trump is responsible for the Afghan-Pakistan skirmish in 2017, the Armenian-Azerbajani war in 2018, among others. FDR must be responsible for WWII. If he was a stronger president, Hitler would never have invaded Poland in 1939. If only Woodrow Wilson was a stronger president, WWI would never have happened. I didn't realize that George W. Bush was responsible for the war in Darfur and the war in Somalia. "Wars started during a US president's term are automatically their fault" is a galactic brain version of "the president of the US controls global gas prices" Maybe open a book on international relations or something before embarrassing yourself. Or even read some of the intellectual discussion on the ongoing Ukraine - Russia conflict and its causes (and not some hackery found on the Federalist or Red State or some other partisan clickbait site).

Between this and the candidates getting tossed from the ballot for fraud, I'd ask what's in the water in Michigan, but I think we already know the answer to that...

So the argument is that Ray Epps was an FBI informant and but for him, the insurrection wouldn't have happened? Seems like a stretch...

Is the argument here that the insurrection was actually organized and lead by the FBI? And that poor innocent people were tricked into storming the Capitol by the FBI? The FBI does some shady crap with undercover informants, but it's hard for me to buy this line that an FBI informant would somehow excuse people for their actions. Let's say the Bills finally win the Super Bowl and we all go to downtown Buffalo for the parade. And then there are a handful of people who yell "let's storm city hall!" and they go to break into city hall. Are you following them in? I certainly am not. And anyone who does should be investigated and prosecuted for the appropriate crimes. Saying "well, this guy said we should do it" probably isn't going to fly in court.

After several candidates were removed from the Michigan gubernatorial ballot due to fraudulent petitions, one of the remaining candidates was just arrested: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/06/09/ryan-kelley-michigan-republican-gop-governor-candidate-arrested/7566967001/ The Michigan race is just bonkers at this point.

Is your argument that the United States is experiencing worse inflation and a worse economy that other rich countries? If the problems were caused by Joe Biden, then we would expect to see the US doing worse than our peers, right? Also, the idea that Putin was scared shitless of Trump is laughable. Maybe shirtless though. And with the Hunter reference, we have now achieved the PPP trifecta on ignoring the thread topic with whataboutism distractions.

Agreed. We don't have one gun problem, we have many gun problems: suicides, homicides, mass murders, accidents, etc. A law that mitigates one of them likely won't mitigate all of them. 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not end up dying by suicide. But people who attempt suicide by firearm are far more likely to die than survive because it is an exceedingly lethal method of suicide. Finding ways to reduce the chance that someone in that moment of crisis will have access to a firearm would be a good place to start.

Everyone seems to think there are dials on the resolute desk for things like gas prices. Like, all Jimmy Carter had to do to save his presidency in the 1970's was take the lever marked "economy" and move it from "bad" to "good." The line of argument might be more convincing if the prices in the US were disproportionately high compared to other countries, but they are not. It is also telling that no matter the actual thread topic, it ends up getting derailed into either inflation, the summer of 2020, or Hunter Biden.

Here were some things I suggested several pages ago: License and regulate guns like we do automobiles National red flag laws Repeal PLCCA Safe storage laws Also, I find this article helpful on understanding some of the facts around gun violence and possible ways to mitigate it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html For those who may not have access, here are some highlights (stats are from 2017): America has ~120 guns per 100 people, far more than other advanced countries like Canada (34.7), Switzerland (27.6) or England (4.6) America has 3.4 gun murders per 100,000 people, much more than peer countries like Canada (0.6), France (0.4) or Switzerland (0.2) There is a correlation between the prevalence of guns in a state and the rate of gun deaths. More guns means more gun deaths There is also a correlation between how heavily regulated guns are in a state and the state's gun death rate. States with stricter regulations have lower rates of gun deaths Causes of gun deaths in 2016: 22,000: Suicide 11,760: Homicide 589: Self defense (good guy with a gun scenario) 456: Mass shootings 3,500: Other or uncategorized When Connecticut passed stricter gun laws in 1995, the rate of gun homicides went down by 40% and the rate of gun suicides went down by 15% When Missouri repealed its licensing requirement in 2007, the rate of gun homicides went up 25% and the rate of gun suicides went up 16% The CDC barely studies gun violence despite how many Americans die via guns. When they wanted to, Congress cut their funding. Having good scientific research into firearm deaths would help identify better solutions to the problem. NRA training, which used to focus almost entirely on safety, now promote NRA talking points Some things the author suggests for gun laws: Better background checks (22% of guns are obtained without one) Protection Orders (similar to red flag laws): prevent people who are subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns Ban purchases for people under 21 Safe storage Tighter enforcement on straw purchases Background checks on ammunition Repeal PLCCA Ban bump stocks (this has been done since the article came out) Research smart guns

To ensure safety, we need to pass a law that the family members of all SCOTUS justices must be fully armed and that their homes have only one door. The assailant here clearly had mental issues that could only be solved if we allowed him to buy more guns.

The Capitol Police are not police?

We need to pass a law that the homes of SCOTUS justices can only have one door to keep them safe from this.

I am a bit confused because when I look at this thread’s title, it seems to be about the Jan 6 insurrection, not the summer of 2020. Either I have that wrong, or people keep bringing up 2020 as a distraction from actually talking about Jan 6…