Just the facts: if any of the facts are in question let me know and I will edit. ****** On January 6th a group of American citizens stormed the capital. In the days after the event every US representative, ever. single. one. called for an investigation to look into the event. A bipartisan committee was formed to investigate the event. The committee has made some of their findings public and have televised presentations of those findings. ************ Is it possible to have a civil conversation about an historical event? Is it possible to separate politics from this historical event? Is it possible to differentiate: facts, opinion, and speculation? Let’s find out
Hiring a TV exec to produce the hearings pretty much says it all as to motives. Impeachment 3.0... brought to you by Pfizer.
Let's test that theory, there are no wrong answers. Additional information has come out about Nixon recently as well as a few years back. Nothing good. Is it history or politics?
100% agree with the 1st sentence. Watchability is obviously the motive. Personally I'm in favor of having the presentation done nicely in a nice easy to follow and easy to watch progression. Regarding sponsorship, I haven't seen any commercials. Is this one of your infamous "I'm just going to make something up to sound funny" posts you've gotten famous for? I guess question 3 has been answered.
The history of it is the political motivation of the charade. These idiots were never going to stop the election results or overthrow the government. To call them insurrectionists is political. To say they were a threat to democracy is political. To say the government was in danger that day is political. We are told the right to bear arms is silly because the government has so many more powerful weapons that we could never stand up to them, yet now we are supposed to believe the government and our democracy is so fragile that a bunch of idiots with flags who were groomed to believe protesting was their patriotic duty and listened for a year their politicians defending violent protests are somehow a threat to our government that warrants a televised charade to convince the public that their choice of protesting was more than it ever was?
Infamous *edit: just doing a quick reply i had assumed i had put famous in my original post you quoted and the first thing that came to mind was "infamous". After taking a second to read the post you replied to, I see in fact that my second reaction was also my first.
You give a response that doesn’t answer the question and ask me if it’s easy… I do enjoy these talks. I’m not disagreeing with your original statement, the Civil War was a good 150 years ago and it’s still difficult for some to discuss without talking about politics. When people can’t agree of the facts, they will never come to any productive agreements or understandings. #sad
I’ll rephrase. The information coming out about Nixon, it is coming out as an attack on the Nixon legacy and the GOP (ie politics) - or is it coming out because researchers find new information and feel the public should know as much as possible about actions of elected officials while in office (ie hostory)?
Did the idiots know they were going to fail? You imply it’s ok in part because they failed. That’s a very interesting take. You also imply the government should have used their full force to squash the protest. Another very interesting take. Regarding the threat to democracy, my understanding is the protesters were just a tool and the threat to democracy would be more along the lines of the planned efforts to continue a big lie, get the base riled up on multiple lies (not just being wrong, straight up knowingly lying), and then unleashing the riled up base on the nation’s capital. Throw in the lack of accountability and therein lie the perceived threat to democracy. Thank you for your contribution to the thread enlightening me to some interesting perspectives.
It was a false flag operation orchestrated by BLM and antifa. Don’t believe me? Ask your nearest Republican. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ha...t-led-jan-6-violence-reutersipsos-2022-06-09/
Watergate was a bigger deal. It involved the FBI, DoJ and CIA all getting involved in a coverup of a corrupt administration's attempt to main power. If not for a conscientious Deputy Director of the FBI they likely would have gotten away with it. Trumpgate involved a sitting President's administration conspiring with congressional actors and private citizens to overturn an election. The only thing that makes Trumpgate near the same level is that the sitting President was willing to so openly encourage the coup. This is because Trump is divorced from any sense of reality and did not understand the ramifications of conspiring to and openly calling for the coup.
True, I understand your points, your first sentences are on point. The last one is what gets me, coup attempts from failed candidates is something we see in 3rd world shitholes though, I never thought I'd see it in the United States. I also think its pretty wild that they can get away with just giving the middle finger to congressional subpoena. Like I dont wanna be questioned so I'm not going to respond. I don't believe that happened with Watergate.
The only reason they are refusing the subpoenas is that they think they're winning the mid-terms and the subpoenas will be withdrawn. It's a favorable calculated risk on the parts of the actors involved. If we get a shift and Democrats control the House after the elections the people ignoring subpoenas will be at extraordinarily high risk. Jail terms in the offing if that happens and not short country club visits either.
I don’t think so. It’s 100% a political event, now, or 100 years from now. Civil conversation, yes. Non political….
