Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And the next rubicon will be the majority party refusing to seat duly elected members of the opposing party. Pelosi has already threatened to do that. Under your logic, why wouldn't she do exactly that?

https://wwmt.com/news/nation-world/pelosi-says-she-has-a-right-not-to-seat-the-gop-candidate-who-won-iowa-house-seat

---

How hard did you have to search to find an important news story like this at some random local Michigan TV station website?

---

He didnt have to look very hard.
He's a regular reader of the Washington Examiner.
Or could you not tell by how hard he repeatedly tries to defend Trump here?

March 17, 2021

House Democrats trying to 'steal' contested Iowa seat, GOP lawmaker says | Washington Examiner

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BG is right in that the GOP would like to provide evidence in support of the insurrection. They intended to present evidence (mostly Bs) about election fraud and ridiculous legal theories. We are talking Eastman and Mike Lindell level stuff that would make the hearings a farce.

There are two sides here. Democracy and peaceful transition of power on one side and BG's GOP on the other side.

---

Is there any doubt that he would have loved to have watched Jim Jordan turn the Jam. 6th Hearings into yet another Faux News prime time clown show about how the election was stolen!?!?!?

Meanwhile, BG still hasnt answered my question about why Trump's most ardent supporters like Michael Flynn have taken the 5th and Mark Meadows has refused to testify.

Gee, I wonder why?

Looks like GINNY T. will be getting a subpoena?

I believe BG would welcome this turn of events so that the Republicans can finally get Trump's side of the story out!


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/24/january-6-panel-ginni-thomas-subpoena

This will be her facial expression immediately after asserting the 5th Amendment privilege:

NEW: Jan. 6 committee member Elaine Luria releases unseen video of depositions and exhibits showing Trump crossed out line in prepared remarks on 1/7 that he would call on DOJ to prosecute Capitol attack rioters — via @RepElaineLuria: pic.twitter.com/nRVsnnFBOc

— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) July 25, 2022

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRACj6bN/?k=1

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

No such thing as a"woke Democrat"

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

---

I don't disagree with much of your take on where the conservatives have been historically, but I am surprised to hear you say that "true conservatives" want to raise taxes. That is taking the "no true scotsman" to the extreme. A core pillar of the conservative movement has been low taxes forever. I think low taxes is what drives the desire for small government and if given a choice between the two, the priority is always low taxes. That's why conservatives don't complain when Republicans cut taxes and raise deficits.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

---

I don't disagree with much of your take on where the conservatives have been historically, but I am surprised to hear you say that "true conservatives" want to raise taxes. That is taking the "no true scotsman" to the extreme. A core pillar of the conservative movement has been low taxes forever. I think low taxes is what drives the desire for small government and if given a choice between the two, the priority is always low taxes. That's why conservatives don't complain when Republicans cut taxes and raise deficits.

---

Not fiscal conservatives like myself, the first Bush and Bill Clinton. Cut expenses and raise taxes enough to bridge to budget deficit. The debate may be the balance between the two.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

---

As for smaller government, that's not going to change bureaucratic inefficiency. You'll just have a federal government that can't get the job done. You'll also have inefficient state bureaucracies too overburdened to pick up the slack.

---

I would just add to this that if the framers wanted us to have an efficient government, maybe they shouldn't have created a federal form of government. I don't really think it's possible to efficiently have federal, state and local governments in the 21st century all with various overlapping oversight.

Due in part to the internet and in part to the globalization of product distribution (and supply chain), activity is far less local now than it was 200+ years ago. The idea that we could have a small federal government and let states do whatever they want is foolish and would greatly damage our economy.

As someone with a little bit of experience with national and international businesses, I would greatly prefer federal to state oversight because you only have one set of rules to worry about and they can generally be moderated by the needs of the entire country as opposed to the local whims of whatever state you are dealing with.

It's not just the areas that people might be familiar with - it's everywhere. I know people in insurance and they have to deal with wildly different regulatory regimes in dozens of states. Same thing for lenders, servicers, brokers, etc. It's not exactly conducive to efficient commerce.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

---

As for smaller government, that's not going to change bureaucratic inefficiency. You'll just have a federal government that can't get the job done. You'll also have inefficient state bureaucracies too overburdened to pick up the slack.

---

I would just add to this that if the framers wanted us to have an efficient government, maybe they shouldn't have created a federal form of government. I don't really think it's possible to efficiently have federal, state and local governments in the 21st century all with various overlapping oversight.

Due in part to the internet and in part to the globalization of product distribution (and supply chain), activity is far less local now than it was 200+ years ago. The idea that we could have a small federal government and let states do whatever they want is foolish and would greatly damage our economy.

As someone with a little bit of experience with national and international businesses, I would greatly prefer federal to state oversight because you only have one set of rules to worry about and they can generally be moderated by the needs of the entire country as opposed to the local whims of whatever state you are dealing with.

It's not just the areas that people might be familiar with - it's everywhere. I know people in insurance and they have to deal with wildly different regulatory regimes in dozens of states. Same thing for lenders, servicers, brokers, etc. It's not exactly conducive to efficient commerce.

---

It is not a question of local vs federal. California has one of the most inefficient and over-spending for less value governments. I am writing about whether bigger government oversight and spending are the solution for every problem we identify. Government provision is not free. It just transfers assets from one group to another and steps in the place of the free markets. Someone is paying for it. Should we instead have non-profits who compete for donation dollars or allow market forces and corresponding inequality in results allow to exist? Should we have private enterprises, etc. solve the issues or do we just get bigger government who have not proven to be efficient ? Looking at how we have addressed homelessness, student loans, Medicare, police, etc. shows that the government is usually the less efficient option. There are situations where the government needs to step in despite inefficiency because we need regulation and basic services for a functioning society, whether law enforcement, DMV, public education, etc., but shifting more and more (including parenting and college education) to the government is not what I view as better option. That is what I mean by smaller government as opposed to a bigger government. There is a spectrum between true laissez faire and true socialist economic model. We are just debating where we want within the two extremes.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

---

As for smaller government, that's not going to change bureaucratic inefficiency. You'll just have a federal government that can't get the job done. You'll also have inefficient state bureaucracies too overburdened to pick up the slack.

---

I would just add to this that if the framers wanted us to have an efficient government, maybe they shouldn't have created a federal form of government. I don't really think it's possible to efficiently have federal, state and local governments in the 21st century all with various overlapping oversight.

Due in part to the internet and in part to the globalization of product distribution (and supply chain), activity is far less local now than it was 200+ years ago. The idea that we could have a small federal government and let states do whatever they want is foolish and would greatly damage our economy.

As someone with a little bit of experience with national and international businesses, I would greatly prefer federal to state oversight because you only have one set of rules to worry about and they can generally be moderated by the needs of the entire country as opposed to the local whims of whatever state you are dealing with.

It's not just the areas that people might be familiar with - it's everywhere. I know people in insurance and they have to deal with wildly different regulatory regimes in dozens of states. Same thing for lenders, servicers, brokers, etc. It's not exactly conducive to efficient commerce.

---

Should we have private enterprises, etc. solve the issues or do we just get bigger government who have not proven to be efficient ? Looking at how we have addressed homelessness, student loans, Medicare, police, etc. shows that the government is usually the less efficient option.

---

I'm not sure I gather. Where are the efficient businesses that have stepped in to address these issues?

Let's just take healthcare. The commercial healthcare market is a disaster in this country. From a cost/efficiency perspective, I didn't think it was debatable. I've heard plenty of anti-medicare arguments but I think it tends to be a more efficient administrator than the expense of private insurance. And if you look at ultimate outcomes, we aren't doing better. A lot of the inefficiency in our healthcare system comes from state by state arcane rules around insurance and corporate practice of medicine so I don't think it's "government isn't efficient" it's "our system is broken." Look at every other country in the world and how they obtain better outcomes for far less money (even when adjusted for cost of living). It's generally on the back of government healthcare, not private markets.



So while I generally agree with conservatives (and others) who criticize our government for inefficiency, I tend to think it's structural and related in no small part to our antiquated federalist system.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I'm glad BG is here to remind us that there are two sides to the insurrection and that he thinks the supporters of the insurrection - his GOP - should be able to defend their assault on our democracy and turn the hearings into a farce.

---

There are not two sides to the capital riots - they were horribly wrong. Just like all political violence, with the 1/6 riots being worse.

Wanting to know EVERYTHING that happened on and before 1/6 and wanting to gather and REVIEW ALL evidence is not inconsistent with my prior paragraph. Amazing that people like you - the first to call republicans fascists - are so accepting of third world authoritarian practices by the dems.

And yes, even if you are 100% convinced the GOP is responsible for inciting a riot, they still should present their evidence. That is how we find truth absent partisanship.

And I've got news for you, the dems are doing a great job making the hearings a farce - just like they did with the impeachments. You (and they) are in such a bubble you think this actually helps the dems on a political level. It doesn't.

The dems are still obsessed with Trump - who is not even on the 2022 ballot - and meanwhile the economy is going into the toilet. Do you think a person who can't afford food, gas, or housing thinks the1/6 hearings are deserving of the dems obsessive attention? Actually, you probably do think that. But you're wrong.

---

These have been some of the least farcical hearings congress has held in years. Compare to the impeachment hearings which a bunch of GOP clowns used purely as opportunities to grandstand with no attempt to address the substance of the matters asserted.

---

Did you watch the impeachment hearings? You didn't see any grandstanding by Schiff, Nadler, et al.? I'm sure you didn't. Probably for the same reason you see no evidence of Biden's senility.

I'm sure Russian, Chinese, Korean and Venezuelan judges are equally polite when presiding over their show trials/hearings. The 1/6 dems and Cheney seem quite happy to join that illustrious group by employing the same show trial tactics and standards.

The republicans will retaliate next year. Can't wait for Hunter Biden to take the fifth and Merrick Garland and other Biden admin officials to claim executive privilege (as they already have in some cases). Biden many even be impeached because of Hunter's foreign dealings. And people here will be outraged because "norms" were not followed. The 1/6 committee is establishing new norms and they are bad for the country.

---

Thanks for reminding us that you support Trump.

---

Thanks for reminding us you have no argument on the merits and need to resort to outright lies.

And since I note you vehemently support Roe and oppose Dobbs, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of killing more babies.

And since I note you support and defend Biden, thanks for reminding us you're in favor of inflation, higher gas prices, recessions, disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan, and other foreign policy failures.

And since I note you love playing the race card and decrying imagined "white supremacy" , thanks for reminding us you support riots, looting and other forms of political violence in support of causes you approve of.

You're so sophomoric and transparent.

---

Very mature and heartwarming response.

I will note for the umpteenth time that I don't support Roe's limitations on rights to make healthcare decisions. Nor do I support killing children, which is an entirely separate issue from choosing whether to terminate.

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives opposed large overreaching government but now we've reached a time when conservatives believe the government forced birth panels should decide which women are forced to give birth against their will. That of course is inconsistent with Jewish law and I look forward to first amendment litigation on this point so we can finally and fully establish that the theocracy in this country is exclusively Christian.

---

I don't believe you are that old. I don't think you are much older than me, if at all, and in my lifetime conservatives have never supported small government except when it allows wealthy people to make more money.

---

Fair point. I'm old enough to remember Republicans pretending to oppose government overreach.

---

I'm old enough to remember that too. Also, I'm old enough to remember Republicans denouncing activist judges legislating from the court room.

---

That's because you think the current iteration of far right Republicans are historical conservative just like the current iteration of far left or woke Democrats are historical liberals. True conservatives still want smaller governments (accurate premise that bureaucracy is inefficient) , want to both cut spending and raise taxes to bridge the budget gap, and don't want activist judges from either side but instead want the respective pillars of government to do their damn jobs.

---

As for smaller government, that's not going to change bureaucratic inefficiency. You'll just have a federal government that can't get the job done. You'll also have inefficient state bureaucracies too overburdened to pick up the slack.

---

I would just add to this that if the framers wanted us to have an efficient government, maybe they shouldn't have created a federal form of government. I don't really think it's possible to efficiently have federal, state and local governments in the 21st century all with various overlapping oversight.

Due in part to the internet and in part to the globalization of product distribution (and supply chain), activity is far less local now than it was 200+ years ago. The idea that we could have a small federal government and let states do whatever they want is foolish and would greatly damage our economy.

As someone with a little bit of experience with national and international businesses, I would greatly prefer federal to state oversight because you only have one set of rules to worry about and they can generally be moderated by the needs of the entire country as opposed to the local whims of whatever state you are dealing with.

It's not just the areas that people might be familiar with - it's everywhere. I know people in insurance and they have to deal with wildly different regulatory regimes in dozens of states. Same thing for lenders, servicers, brokers, etc. It's not exactly conducive to efficient commerce.

---

Should we have private enterprises, etc. solve the issues or do we just get bigger government who have not proven to be efficient ? Looking at how we have addressed homelessness, student loans, Medicare, police, etc. shows that the government is usually the less efficient option.

---

I'm not sure I gather. Where are the efficient businesses that have stepped in to address these issues?

Let's just take healthcare. The commercial healthcare market is a disaster in this country. From a cost/efficiency perspective, I didn't think it was debatable. I've heard plenty of anti-medicare arguments but I think it tends to be a more efficient administrator than the expense of private insurance. And if you look at ultimate outcomes, we aren't doing better. A lot of the inefficiency in our healthcare system comes from state by state arcane rules around insurance and corporate practice of medicine so I don't think it's "government isn't efficient" it's "our system is broken." Look at every other country in the world and how they obtain better outcomes for far less money (even when adjusted for cost of living). It's generally on the back of government healthcare, not private markets.



So while I generally agree with conservatives (and others) who criticize our government for inefficiency, I tend to think it's structural and related in no small part to our antiquated federalist system.

---

Surprisingly (to many), Mexico is actually part of North America (as are the countries in Central America). Even if it doesn't fit certain narratives.

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

---

I think there are three groups of people.

People on the left who had already assumed the worst and are hoping for a third round of impeachment.

People on the far right who won't listen anyway.

The only ones who are impacted by these hearings are those like me and other center right / independents who have no regard for the ineptitude of the current democrats in governance but who cannot allow economics and desire for competence to trump the level of betrayal to the country that is even worse than what we suspected from the prior administration.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

---

I think there are three groups of people.

People on the left who had already assumed the worst and are hoping for a third round of impeachment.

People on the far right who won't listen anyway.

The only ones who are impacted by these hearings are those like me and other center right / independents who have no regard for the ineptitude of the current democrats in governance but who cannot allow economics and desire for competence to trump the level of betrayal to the country that is even worse than what we suspected from the prior administration.

---

I think that's fair if you only consider fallout on Trump with voters, which I think we both agree is minimal at this point.

What may not be minimal is the fallout on those found to be participatory or complicit in Trump's obvious misconduct. That's could be wishful thinking but who knows.

The other thing that this will do is make more establishment conservatives think twice before going along with Trump and the rest of the GOP who has fallen for these crackpot schemes. Will Trump's people think twice before breaking the law next time? I would hope so, since he isn't going to protect them and Merrick Garland may not give them the pass the way he has for Trump.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

---

I think there are three groups of people.

People on the left who had already assumed the worst and are hoping for a third round of impeachment.

People on the far right who won't listen anyway.

The only ones who are impacted by these hearings are those like me and other center right / independents who have no regard for the ineptitude of the current democrats in governance but who cannot allow economics and desire for competence to trump the level of betrayal to the country that is even worse than what we suspected from the prior administration.

---

I think that's fair if you only consider fallout on Trump with voters, which I think we both agree is minimal at this point.

What may not be minimal is the fallout on those found to be participatory or complicit in Trump's obvious misconduct. That's could be wishful thinking but who knows.

The other thing that this will do is make more establishment conservatives think twice before going along with Trump and the rest of the GOP who has fallen for these crackpot schemes. Will Trump's people think twice before breaking the law next time? I would hope so, since he isn't going to protect them and Merrick Garland may not give them the pass the way he has for Trump.

---

In light of the dim prospects for the Dems in the midterm and even 2024, do you want Trump to go away and for the GOP to turn their back on him? Do you think the Dems would have any chance to retain the majority in Congress or retain the white house against a traditional conservative. I for one would not vote for Biden again if he did not run against Trump or his clone.

There is a reason why some Dems are doing a truly Trump-like despicable act of promoting Trump's acolytes in the primary and making it even more costly for a Republican to oppose Trump. They are willing to burn Republicans who will stand up for America just for the Democrat candidate to have a better chance of winning the general election. You cannot ask the Republicans to act responsibly and then team up with Trumpians to burn the responsible Republicans for your own benefit (not saying you support that - you refers to certain Democrats).

concordtom said:

---

Honestly, in the olden days, trump would have already met the guillotine, the hangman's noose, the firing squad.

It's so blatant at this point. They are all hiding behind the safety of legal protections. The only way he can escape judgment is to win again and sack the entire government.

And here is that very plan, fire 50,000:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-2025-plan-gut-gov-114406430.html

---

Per CNN Politics, Donald Trump has become more popular since the January 6 Capitol attack

January 6 did little damage to Trump over the long term

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/11/politics/donald-trump-january-6-democrats-moderate/index.html

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

---

I think there are three groups of people.

People on the left who had already assumed the worst and are hoping for a third round of impeachment.

People on the far right who won't listen anyway.

The only ones who are impacted by these hearings are those like me and other center right / independents who have no regard for the ineptitude of the current democrats in governance but who cannot allow economics and desire for competence to trump the level of betrayal to the country that is even worse than what we suspected from the prior administration.

---

I think that's fair if you only consider fallout on Trump with voters, which I think we both agree is minimal at this point.

What may not be minimal is the fallout on those found to be participatory or complicit in Trump's obvious misconduct. That's could be wishful thinking but who knows.

The other thing that this will do is make more establishment conservatives think twice before going along with Trump and the rest of the GOP who has fallen for these crackpot schemes. Will Trump's people think twice before breaking the law next time? I would hope so, since he isn't going to protect them and Merrick Garland may not give them the pass the way he has for Trump.

---

In light of the dim prospects for the Dems in the midterm and even 2024, do you want Trump to go away and for the GOP to turn their back on him? Do you think the Dems would have any chance to retain the majority in Congress or retain the white house against a traditional conservative. I for one would not vote for Biden again if he did not run against Trump or his clone.

There is a reason why some Dems are doing a truly Trump-like despicable act of promoting Trump's acolytes in the primary and making it even more costly for a Republican to oppose Trump. They are willing to burn Republicans who will stand up for America just for the Democrat candidate to have a better chance of winning the general election. You cannot ask the Republicans to act responsibly and then team up with Trumpians to burn the responsible Republicans for your own benefit (not saying you support that - you refers to certain Democrats).

---

Serious question - do you believe a "traditional conservative" has a chance to be the GOP nominee in 2024? Who will vote for him? Mitt Romney has almost no pull in the party and he's the most experienced, best pedigreed trad conservative out there.

---

No I don't but both parties are squeezing out traditional conservatives. For both parties, they will burn the public to win the next election.

Farah says she KNOWS White House aides ready to cooperate with DOJ



https://mol.im/a/11054057

Garland promises 'justice without fear or favor' as DoJ digs into Trump's January 6 role


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/26/garland-charge-trump-capitol-attack-jan-6-doj?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

---

I think there are three groups of people.

People on the left who had already assumed the worst and are hoping for a third round of impeachment.

People on the far right who won't listen anyway.

The only ones who are impacted by these hearings are those like me and other center right / independents who have no regard for the ineptitude of the current democrats in governance but who cannot allow economics and desire for competence to trump the level of betrayal to the country that is even worse than what we suspected from the prior administration.

---

I think that's fair if you only consider fallout on Trump with voters, which I think we both agree is minimal at this point.

What may not be minimal is the fallout on those found to be participatory or complicit in Trump's obvious misconduct. That's could be wishful thinking but who knows.

The other thing that this will do is make more establishment conservatives think twice before going along with Trump and the rest of the GOP who has fallen for these crackpot schemes. Will Trump's people think twice before breaking the law next time? I would hope so, since he isn't going to protect them and Merrick Garland may not give them the pass the way he has for Trump.

---

In light of the dim prospects for the Dems in the midterm and even 2024, do you want Trump to go away and for the GOP to turn their back on him? Do you think the Dems would have any chance to retain the majority in Congress or retain the white house against a traditional conservative. I for one would not vote for Biden again if he did not run against Trump or his clone.

There is a reason why some Dems are doing a truly Trump-like despicable act of promoting Trump's acolytes in the primary and making it even more costly for a Republican to oppose Trump. They are willing to burn Republicans who will stand up for America just for the Democrat candidate to have a better chance of winning the general election. You cannot ask the Republicans to act responsibly and then team up with Trumpians to burn the responsible Republicans for your own benefit (not saying you support that - you refers to certain Democrats).

---

Serious question - do you believe a "traditional conservative" has a chance to be the GOP nominee in 2024? Who will vote for him? Mitt Romney has almost no pull in the party and he's the most experienced, best pedigreed trad conservative out there.

---

No I don't but both parties are squeezing out traditional conservatives. For both parties, they will burn the public to win the next election.

---

From a policy perspective, I think DeSantis checks a lot of your conservative boxes. He's definitely a combatant in the culture wars and has adopted some populist rhetoric. But on policy, he's been traditionally conservative in running Florida and in his positions during his (very limited) time in congress.

And for the record, Mitt Romney does not in my view check many of the traditional conservative boxes you described. Not fiscally or from a role of government perspective (look at his time in MA).

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LOL Miller testified under oath that there was no authorization by Trump for troops on Jan 6. Won't stop deplorables from continuing to pretend that Trump is blameless for the carnage on Jan 6.

Question: Just to be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10k troops to be ready for January 6th, correct
Miller: That’s correct. There was no order from the President pic.twitter.com/1a4mQ0YJnq

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 26, 2022

They might ask why Miller has previously told a different story about what he said, but if anyone swears an oath on Sean Hannity's show, it's certainly not about telling the truth.

---

I think there are three groups of people.

People on the left who had already assumed the worst and are hoping for a third round of impeachment.

People on the far right who won't listen anyway.

The only ones who are impacted by these hearings are those like me and other center right / independents who have no regard for the ineptitude of the current democrats in governance but who cannot allow economics and desire for competence to trump the level of betrayal to the country that is even worse than what we suspected from the prior administration.

---

I think that's fair if you only consider fallout on Trump with voters, which I think we both agree is minimal at this point.

What may not be minimal is the fallout on those found to be participatory or complicit in Trump's obvious misconduct. That's could be wishful thinking but who knows.

The other thing that this will do is make more establishment conservatives think twice before going along with Trump and the rest of the GOP who has fallen for these crackpot schemes. Will Trump's people think twice before breaking the law next time? I would hope so, since he isn't going to protect them and Merrick Garland may not give them the pass the way he has for Trump.

---

In light of the dim prospects for the Dems in the midterm and even 2024, do you want Trump to go away and for the GOP to turn their back on him? Do you think the Dems would have any chance to retain the majority in Congress or retain the white house against a traditional conservative. I for one would not vote for Biden again if he did not run against Trump or his clone.

There is a reason why some Dems are doing a truly Trump-like despicable act of promoting Trump's acolytes in the primary and making it even more costly for a Republican to oppose Trump. They are willing to burn Republicans who will stand up for America just for the Democrat candidate to have a better chance of winning the general election. You cannot ask the Republicans to act responsibly and then team up with Trumpians to burn the responsible Republicans for your own benefit (not saying you support that - you refers to certain Democrats).

---

Serious question - do you believe a "traditional conservative" has a chance to be the GOP nominee in 2024? Who will vote for him? Mitt Romney has almost no pull in the party and he's the most experienced, best pedigreed trad conservative out there.

---

No I don't but both parties are squeezing out traditional conservatives. For both parties, they will burn the public to win the next election.

---

From a policy perspective, I think DeSantis checks a lot of your conservative boxes. He's definitely a combatant in the culture wars and has adopted some populist rhetoric. But on policy, he's been traditionally conservative in running Florida and in his positions during his (very limited) time in congress.

And for the record, Mitt Romney does not in my view check many of the traditional conservative boxes you described. Not fiscally or from a role of government perspective (look at his time in MA).

---

DeSantis is too much of an election denier but a much smarter and saner option to Trump. Liz Cheney is as conservative as one gets from a policy standpoint while still respecting democracy. Youngkin would also be a good option. Cruz and Hawley can **** off. Cheney would never get past the primary as a Republican but I would vote for her if she ran as an independent before Trump or Biden.

It is too bad that even some Democrat PACs are spending money in primaries to have Republicans who voted to impeach Trump or even certify the results defeated after previously imploring them to put country before election. They have no right to complain about the current Republican Party of Trump worshippers.

Did the J6 Commission determine the identify of Scaffold Commander? I'm sure there are people in the DOJ who know. It wasn't FBI special agent Timmy.