Rep. Jim Jordan Seeks to Oust Rep. Liz Cheney from Leadership

 

According to this Politico article, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan plans to move to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from her position as the House Republican Conference Chair. Cheney previously announced her support for the impeachment of President Trump. According to the same article, the top two Republicans in the House — Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise — oppose impeachment.

This strikes me as a proper response to Cheney’s action. As I have posted previously, I find the calls for Trump’s impeachment to be a deranged overreaction. It is very disappointing to see some erstwhile conservatives and Republicans supporting such an action.

Rep. Cheney is entitled to her opinion and may vote as she sees fit. I think that it is quite proper for her House colleagues to remove her from a leadership position, if they disagree strongly with her on such an important issue.

I do expect that any Republican Congressmen or Senators who support impeachment to face a serious primary challenge in their next election.  Rightfully so, in my view.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 188 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):
    I’m just going to assume you missed it when I said I’m not making excuses for BLM/Antifa or attempting to downplay their significance. Clearly, not all riots are equal but at the same time it doesn’t matter if they were “mostly peaceful” to start. Re-posting internet memes isn’t particularly helpful.

    I think your statement “whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot” required that response.

    And as with many things that some people might claim are absolute – something is either a riot, or it’s not – there are gradations. Indeed, compared with BLM/Antifa, it might reasonably claimed that Jan 6 was not actually a “riot” since very few of the thousands of people present, were involved.

    This strikes me as more excuse-making for what happened at the Capitol. After 2 months of Trump and his allies lying about the size and scale of alleged voter fraud, the rhetoric got more and more desperate. When the court challenges all failed, Trump resorted to trying to pressure state legislatures to change the electoral votes. When that failed, he pressured Pence to violate the Constitution and reject electoral votes. All the while, Trump insisted he won in a landslide.

    The result is a lot of people believing that an election had been stolen. The fraud and conspiracy was enormous. What other option did they have? They were convinced by the lies that they needed to “fight” and show “strength” to make sure that Congress and Pence “did the right thing.” Members of Congress called for violence! The result was then a riot on 1/6.

    Even if you disagree with how the riot happened, do you at least agree that it was wrong? That it is deserving of condemnation?

    Sure it was wrong.  As for punishment, get back to me after the thousands of businesses and buildings destroyed by BLM/Antifa have been rebuilt and the owners made whole, and the people who killed at least two dozen other people are locked up possibly for life.

    I get really sick of the left demanding everything while doing nothing themselves.   They can go first, this time.  All those buildings and businesses destroyed – including over 100 federal buildings damaged! – and at least two dozen people killed, is WAY WORSE than what happened on the 6th.  As others say, “Full Stop.”

    • #151
  2. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    GFHandle (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If we put the number of “pure” Trump supporters at 35-40 mil (just a guess), that’s still a highly influential group in a national election for as long as they live.

    Or is it the case that the NT crowd is faking and it is not Trump they oppose but those values?

    By and large, yes; and not just the NT crowd.

    As for forming a second party, if it comes to that, I would support it if the first wave of defectors was sufficient to greatly cripple the capacity of Republicans to win, as there would no longer be any point in voting for the Stupid Party-like I’ve said before, I’ve had my own issues with Trump this past month or so, but I am completely alienated from most of the Republican political class. Its up to the latter not to throw away the hardcore (i.e. the theoretical first wave) Trump vote, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do that.

    It’s easy to suspect that many who called Trump too divisive, too confrontational, etc, were actually motivated not by “Trump is divisive” etc, but by “Trump is trying to stop our gravy train!” And they were able to convince a lot of people who were not on the gravy train themselves but could be flattered into going along and hence believe they were really the righteous ones. Those would be the useful idiots. In some cases it may not be immediately clear whether an individual is on the “gravy train” side personally or if they are one of the “useful idiots.” In others it’s glaringly obvious.

    Tell me, can anyone have a principled opposition to Trump in your mind? Or are all of us “useful idiots” or grifters? Because quite frankly, that is the only way you know how to debate. Anyone with whom you disagree is being disingenuous or has some other motive that isn’t clear. Why? Is it really impossible to accept that a great many of us found Trump to be unfit for office?

    • #152
  3. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    No, the reason why it gets put in air quotes is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot.

    Okay, fine, then all “riots” are the same?

    So, if I was outraged at the riots during the summer, can I still be outraged at a riot that included people who were trying to overturn a legitimate election? Can I be outraged that there were people with zip-tie handcuffs looking to kidnap and harm members of Congress?

    I was outraged at the rioters who vandalized my state capitol and tore down a statue of Hans Christian Heg–a man who literally gave his life fighting to abolish slavery and preserve the Union–in the name of “racial justice.” I was outraged when the same crowd attacked a state senator for taking pictures, even though he supported their cause. I was outraged when so-called leaders did nothing to hold the rioters accountable.

    I am also outraged that self-described “patriots” attacked police officers, forced their way into the Capitol, and tried to force Congress to overturn the election. The videos of these idiots literally beating a police officer with American flags is repulsive. This isn’t a particularly difficult call. Because of them, and the politicians and pundits that lied to them about the election, this will not be a peaceful transition of power. How are you not ashamed of this? And if you are, why are we “whatabouting” this?

    Yes.

    It’s not what abouting, it’s why weren’t the (D)/MSM outraged by all rioting.

    It’s more a WTF.

    As has been mentioned on other threads, calling “whataboutism” is just a tool used by the left to distract from their hypocrisy, among other issues.

    I’m very much not on the left. Their hypocrisy is awful. I have no problem condemning it provided that at the same time you are also condemning the riot at the Capitol. You seem to be deflecting and accusing those of us who are outraged as virtue signaling or simply seeking liberal approval.

    Not deflecting, it was morally wrong, criminal, people were injured and killed, and it was a political disaster for the (R), and has buried whatever limited reputation Trump might have retained post Presidency ….

    …. And it’s a spectacular hypocritical lie that after months of excusing and lying about the Leftist Antifa rioting, looting, creating havoc in the cities the (D)/MSM has suddenly found the rioting is wrong religion.

    • #153
  4. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    This strikes me as more excuse-making for what happened at the Capitol. After 2 months of Trump and his allies lying about the size and scale of alleged voter fraud, the rhetoric got more and more desperate. When the court challenges all failed, Trump resorted to trying to pressure state legislatures to change the electoral votes. When that failed, he pressured Pence to violate the Constitution and reject electoral votes. All the while, Trump insisted he won in a landslide.

    The result is a lot of people believing that an election had been stolen. The fraud and conspiracy was enormous. What other option did they have? They were convinced by the lies that they needed to “fight” and show “strength” to make sure that Congress and Pence “did the right thing.” Members of Congress called for violence! The result was then a riot on 1/6.

    Even if you disagree with how the riot happened, do you at least agree that it was wrong? That it is deserving of condemnation?

    Sure it was wrong. As for punishment, get back to me after the thousands of businesses and buildings destroyed by BLM/Antifa have been rebuilt and the owners made whole, and the people who killed at least two dozen other people are locked up possibly for life.

    I get really sick of the left demanding everything while doing nothing themselves. They can go first, this time. All those buildings and businesses destroyed – including over 100 federal buildings damaged! – and at least two dozen people killed, is WAY WORSE than what happened on the 6th. As others say, “Full Stop.”

    Again, this is deflection. You again point to failures of others as an excuse to punishing the rioters at the Capitol. And again, I am not a lefty “demanding everything.”

    As to your claim that this some was “WAY WORSE” than the Capitol riot, I am sorry but we disagree. We have endured riots before in America. They are wrong and outrageous, but sadly not new. What happened at the Capitol is new to America. This wasn’t random, wanton destruction, but an attempt to overturn an election. Trump egged them on and told them that “we love you” but go home. That is unacceptable. Every bit as much as the appeasement of the left during the summer. 

    • #154
  5. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    We shall see if Representatives Biggs or Gosar have signed such a statement.

    Even if they did it would appear to be unenforceable, because Unconstitutional.

    Yep.  Jerry has convinced me of that.  Damn.  I will have to wait until the Republican Primary in August 2022.  (I won’t be funded a Democrat against Biggs or Gosar, just as I won’t be funding a Republican against AOC or Omar, given that they are unbeatable in the general election.)

    • #155
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    GFHandle (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If we put the number of “pure” Trump supporters at 35-40 mil (just a guess), that’s still a highly influential group in a national election for as long as they live.

    Or is it the case that the NT crowd is faking and it is not Trump they oppose but those values?

    By and large, yes; and not just the NT crowd.

    As for forming a second party, if it comes to that, I would support it if the first wave of defectors was sufficient to greatly cripple the capacity of Republicans to win, as there would no longer be any point in voting for the Stupid Party-like I’ve said before, I’ve had my own issues with Trump this past month or so, but I am completely alienated from most of the Republican political class. Its up to the latter not to throw away the hardcore (i.e. the theoretical first wave) Trump vote, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do that.

    It’s easy to suspect that many who called Trump too divisive, too confrontational, etc, were actually motivated not by “Trump is divisive” etc, but by “Trump is trying to stop our gravy train!” And they were able to convince a lot of people who were not on the gravy train themselves but could be flattered into going along and hence believe they were really the righteous ones. Those would be the useful idiots. In some cases it may not be immediately clear whether an individual is on the “gravy train” side personally or if they are one of the “useful idiots.” In others it’s glaringly obvious.

    Tell me, can anyone have a principled opposition to Trump in your mind? Or are all of us “useful idiots” or grifters? Because quite frankly, that is the only way you know how to debate. Anyone with whom you disagree is being disingenuous or has some other motive that isn’t clear. Why? Is it really impossible to accept that a great many of us found Trump to be unfit for office?

    Hmm, in short I might say that a “principled” opposition to Trump could only be regarding policy, which most Republicans – including the NTers, or at least so they would have us believe – don’t seem to have.  Anything regarding “mean tweeting” etc would not, on that basis, be “principled.”  So, what “principled” opposition do  you have?  Bad judge picks?  Nonsense.  Not actually lowering the debt?  Show me any Republican candidate/president who has done better.  etc.

    As for “unfit,” how often does it have to be pointed out that Trump wasn’t running against Jesus?  Nor could Jesus have won as a write-in.

    • #156
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    As to your claim that this some was “WAY WORSE” than the Capitol riot, I am sorry but we disagree. We have endured riots before in America. They are wrong and outrageous, but sadly not new. What happened at the Capitol is new to America. This wasn’t random, wanton destruction, but an attempt to overturn an election. Trump egged them on and told them that “we love you” but go home. That is unacceptable. Every bit as much as the appeasement of the left during the summer. 

    Ignoring history, assuming facts not in evidence, etc, etc.

    • #157
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Gosh I have to step in here. The “gun” thing is a very weak analogy. Trump has held skads of rallies without incident with the same kind of rhetoric. There were tens of thousands of people at this rally that did nothing. It’s pretty obvious that the minute portion of those who did cause the riot (number as yet unknown) had their own agenda. That’s not on Trump.

    Right, it was “mostly peaceful.”

    Yea, I admit that’s a cheap shot but I refuse to make excuses for this. It doesn’t matter that it was a “minute portion” exactly like how we didn’t excuse protests on the other side for their “minute portion” of BLM/Antifa rioters. And do I really have to remind you that what you say in a rally, where you hold it and when you hold it all matter?

    Actually, the Trump rally REALLY WAS mostly peaceful. The reason “mostly peaceful” gets put in “air quotes” is because the BLM/Antifa rallies AREN’T mostly peaceful, although their leaders/handlers and the media claim they are/were. And the “air quotes” also serve to show that we aren’t falling for it.

    No, the reason why it gets put in air quotes is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot.

     

    Okay, fine, then all “riots” are the same?

     

    This is truly silly.  The “federal building” is the Capitol itself, the likely final target of Flight 93.  This is like saying that St. Peters is just a church, and not the home of the Roman Catholic Church.  The other point is that the rioters were trying to subvert the election and to kidnap or harm our elected members of Congress.

    • #158
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Gosh I have to step in here. The “gun” thing is a very weak analogy. Trump has held skads of rallies without incident with the same kind of rhetoric. There were tens of thousands of people at this rally that did nothing. It’s pretty obvious that the minute portion of those who did cause the riot (number as yet unknown) had their own agenda. That’s not on Trump.

    Right, it was “mostly peaceful.”

    Yea, I admit that’s a cheap shot but I refuse to make excuses for this. It doesn’t matter that it was a “minute portion” exactly like how we didn’t excuse protests on the other side for their “minute portion” of BLM/Antifa rioters. And do I really have to remind you that what you say in a rally, where you hold it and when you hold it all matter?

    Actually, the Trump rally REALLY WAS mostly peaceful. The reason “mostly peaceful” gets put in “air quotes” is because the BLM/Antifa rallies AREN’T mostly peaceful, although their leaders/handlers and the media claim they are/were. And the “air quotes” also serve to show that we aren’t falling for it.

    No, the reason why it gets put in air quotes is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot.

    Okay, fine, then all “riots” are the same?

    This is truly silly. The “federal building” is the Capitol itself, the likely final target of Flight 93. This is like saying that St. Peters is just a church, and not the home of the Roman Catholic Church. The other point is that the rioters were trying to subvert the election and to kidnap or harm our elected members of Congress.

    There is absolutely no evidence yet of their intent, assuming there even was a single intent.  And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    Like all memes, this has a hole or two, but the substance is spot-on.  Your guy Biden stood by for months saying nothing and tacitly condoning the riots.  But he’s a uniter.

    • #159
  10. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Gosh I have to step in here. The “gun” thing is a very weak analogy. Trump has held skads of rallies without incident with the same kind of rhetoric. There were tens of thousands of people at this rally that did nothing. It’s pretty obvious that the minute portion of those who did cause the riot (number as yet unknown) had their own agenda. That’s not on Trump.

    Right, it was “mostly peaceful.”

    Yea, I admit that’s a cheap shot but I refuse to make excuses for this. It doesn’t matter that it was a “minute portion” exactly like how we didn’t excuse protests on the other side for their “minute portion” of BLM/Antifa rioters. And do I really have to remind you that what you say in a rally, where you hold it and when you hold it all matter?

    Actually, the Trump rally REALLY WAS mostly peaceful. The reason “mostly peaceful” gets put in “air quotes” is because the BLM/Antifa rallies AREN’T mostly peaceful, although their leaders/handlers and the media claim they are/were. And the “air quotes” also serve to show that we aren’t falling for it.

    No, the reason why it gets put in air quotes is that it doesn’t matter whether or not a riot was mostly peaceful, it’s still a riot.

     

    Okay, fine, then all “riots” are the same?

     

    This is truly silly. The “federal building” is the Capitol itself, the likely final target of Flight 93. This is like saying that St. Peters is just a church, and not the home of the Roman Catholic Church. The other point is that the rioters were trying to subvert the election and to kidnap or harm our elected members of Congress.

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So their statements in social media are not admissions against interest by a party opponent, and thus not hearsay by definition?  Also, during the Senate Trial, we will have have bunches of confirmation.

    • #160
  11. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So their statements in social media are not admissions against interest by a party opponent, and thus not hearsay by definition? Also, during the Senate Trial, we will have have bunches of confirmation.

    Unlike you, I’m willing to wait for any trial and official findings.  I’m not foolish enough to think everyone who invaded the Capitol did so with the same purpose. And, unlike you, I don’t lionize the Capitol in comparison to small businesses across the country.

     

    • #161
  12. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):

     

    Tell me, can anyone have a principled opposition to Trump in your mind? Or are all of us “useful idiots” or grifters? Because quite frankly, that is the only way you know how to debate. Anyone with whom you disagree is being disingenuous or has some other motive that isn’t clear. Why? Is it really impossible to accept that a great many of us found Trump to be unfit for office?

    Hmm, in short I might say that a “principled” opposition to Trump could only be regarding policy, which most Republicans – including the NTers, or at least so they would have us believe – don’t seem to have. Anything regarding “mean tweeting” etc would not, on that basis, be “principled.” So, what “principled” opposition do you have? Bad judge picks? Nonsense. Not actually lowering the debt? Show me any Republican candidate/president who has done better. etc.

    As for “unfit,” how often does it have to be pointed out that Trump wasn’t running against Jesus? Nor could Jesus have won as a write-in.

    Policy? Okay. I oppose his handling of North Korea. I oppose his surrender in Afghanistan. I oppose his snap withdrawal from northern Syria that left our allies at Erdogan’s mercy. I oppose his foolish trade wars. I oppose his use of a “national emergency” to try and build the wall. I oppose the way he undercut repeal of Obamacare. I oppose his use of bailouts to farmers as a way to limit the damage from his trade wars. I could go on. 

    But yes, I also oppose him because of his character. I am not asking for perfection, just a bare minimum of common decency. He is a thin-skinned bully who lashes out at any perceived slight. He bragged about only hiring the best people, yet attacks anyone who disagrees. He is inconsistent and erratic–just look at foreign policy. He is too easily swayed by flattery. He also has proven that the only thing he actually cares about is himself and his own ego. He is lazy and unwilling to do the actual work of governing. If you can watch the coronavirus briefings and reach a different conclusion, then we see the world very differently. 

    The difference I see between what I just laid out and so many “always” Trump people is that I don’t begrudge people who made a different choice. I don’t blame people who view the election as a binary choice, or are willing to look past Trump’s faults in exchange for the policy they like. Those people aren’t my enemy and I think we can build off the things we have in common. What I don’t understand is why those of us who opposed Trump but supported the rest of the GOP must now be the enemy.  

    • #162
  13. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    As to your claim that this some was “WAY WORSE” than the Capitol riot, I am sorry but we disagree. We have endured riots before in America. They are wrong and outrageous, but sadly not new. What happened at the Capitol is new to America. This wasn’t random, wanton destruction, but an attempt to overturn an election. Trump egged them on and told them that “we love you” but go home. That is unacceptable. Every bit as much as the appeasement of the left during the summer.

    Ignoring history, assuming facts not in evidence, etc, etc.

    Enlighten me. What history do I ignore? What evidence am I assuming. Please, do tell.

    • #163
  14. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right? 

    • #164
  15. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

     

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions.  It’s so much easier to not have to think.

     

    • #165
  16. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions. It’s so much easier to not have to think.

    Part of thinking is being able to look at evidence, recognize it as such, and come to conclusions.  Trials and investigations are to establish specific criminality.  I don’t have to wait for them to understand that the rioters weren’t there to exchange brownie recipes with Nancy Pelosi. 

    • #166
  17. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions. It’s so much easier to not have to think.

    Part of thinking is being able to look at evidence, recognize it as such, and come to conclusions. Trials and investigations are to establish specific criminality. I don’t have to wait for them to understand that the rioters weren’t there to exchange brownie recipes with Nancy Pelosi.

    Part of thinking is also knowing when the evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion.  In my experience, the faster that process occurs, the less reliable the conclusion.  You’re predisposed to view this a certain way, so you’re going to consider what you want when you want, and pretend it’s enough.  I prefer to wait.  I’ve never had a problem with that.

    • #167
  18. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions. It’s so much easier to not have to think.

    Part of thinking is being able to look at evidence, recognize it as such, and come to conclusions. Trials and investigations are to establish specific criminality. I don’t have to wait for them to understand that the rioters weren’t there to exchange brownie recipes with Nancy Pelosi.

    Part of thinking is also knowing when the evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion. In my experience, the faster that process occurs, the less reliable the conclusion. You’re predisposed to view this a certain way, so you’re going to consider what you want when you want, and pretend it’s enough. I prefer to wait. I’ve never had a problem with that.

    And I’ve never had a problem with recognizing the obvious.

    • #168
  19. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions. It’s so much easier to not have to think.

    Part of thinking is being able to look at evidence, recognize it as such, and come to conclusions. Trials and investigations are to establish specific criminality. I don’t have to wait for them to understand that the rioters weren’t there to exchange brownie recipes with Nancy Pelosi.

    Part of thinking is also knowing when the evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion. In my experience, the faster that process occurs, the less reliable the conclusion. You’re predisposed to view this a certain way, so you’re going to consider what you want when you want, and pretend it’s enough. I prefer to wait. I’ve never had a problem with that.

    And I’ve never had a problem with recognizing the obvious.

    Why answer if you’re just going to say the same thing?  My response is above.

    • #169
  20. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    kedavis (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    GFHandle (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If we put the number of “pure” Trump supporters at 35-40 mil (just a guess), that’s still a highly influential group in a national election for as long as they live.

    Or is it the case that the NT crowd is faking and it is not Trump they oppose but those values?

    By and large, yes; and not just the NT crowd.

    As for forming a second party, if it comes to that, I would support it if the first wave of defectors was sufficient to greatly cripple the capacity of Republicans to win, as there would no longer be any point in voting for the Stupid Party-like I’ve said before, I’ve had my own issues with Trump this past month or so, but I am completely alienated from most of the Republican political class. Its up to the latter not to throw away the hardcore (i.e. the theoretical first wave) Trump vote, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do that.

    It’s easy to suspect that many who called Trump too divisive, too confrontational, etc, were actually motivated not by “Trump is divisive” etc, but by “Trump is trying to stop our gravy train!” And they were able to convince a lot of people who were not on the gravy train themselves but could be flattered into going along and hence believe they were really the righteous ones. Those would be the useful idiots. In some cases it may not be immediately clear whether an individual is on the “gravy train” side personally or if they are one of the “useful idiots.” In others it’s glaringly obvious.

    For the politicians, yes, but for many voters and pundits they just are not very conservative, and tend not to like very conservative people all that much.

    • #170
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    GFHandle (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If we put the number of “pure” Trump supporters at 35-40 mil (just a guess), that’s still a highly influential group in a national election for as long as they live.

    Or is it the case that the NT crowd is faking and it is not Trump they oppose but those values?

    By and large, yes; and not just the NT crowd.

    As for forming a second party, if it comes to that, I would support it if the first wave of defectors was sufficient to greatly cripple the capacity of Republicans to win, as there would no longer be any point in voting for the Stupid Party-like I’ve said before, I’ve had my own issues with Trump this past month or so, but I am completely alienated from most of the Republican political class. Its up to the latter not to throw away the hardcore (i.e. the theoretical first wave) Trump vote, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do that.

    It’s easy to suspect that many who called Trump too divisive, too confrontational, etc, were actually motivated not by “Trump is divisive” etc, but by “Trump is trying to stop our gravy train!” And they were able to convince a lot of people who were not on the gravy train themselves but could be flattered into going along and hence believe they were really the righteous ones. Those would be the useful idiots. In some cases it may not be immediately clear whether an individual is on the “gravy train” side personally or if they are one of the “useful idiots.” In others it’s glaringly obvious.

    For the politicians, yes, but for many voters and pundits they just are not very conservative, and tend not to like very conservative people all that much.

    They should like us, because we’re more likely to let them live their lives as they prefer, than the people supposedly on their side if those people don’t agree with them on something.

    • #171
  22. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions. It’s so much easier to not have to think.

    Part of thinking is being able to look at evidence, recognize it as such, and come to conclusions. Trials and investigations are to establish specific criminality. I don’t have to wait for them to understand that the rioters weren’t there to exchange brownie recipes with Nancy Pelosi.

    Part of thinking is also knowing when the evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion. In my experience, the faster that process occurs, the less reliable the conclusion. You’re predisposed to view this a certain way, so you’re going to consider what you want when you want, and pretend it’s enough. I prefer to wait. I’ve never had a problem with that.

    Hoyacon, the problem is that Trump has the nuclear codes and is acting erratically.  The events of January 6, 2021 are clear to see to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, to use a biblical phrase.  We don’t need proof to the ultimate degree.

    • #172
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    GFHandle (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    So having a nice-looking candidate who TALKS a good game would not be a departure from the norm.

    Agreed. But Trump couldn’t drain the swamp either. All we can ask is for someone who sees roughly the same main problems we do and favors roughly the same solutions we do and shows a willingness to work at them. Trump does draw a LOT of oxygen to himself. Maybe someone who could make the case with a bit more clarity could be more successful? Someone with the rhetorical skills of Lincoln, say? I don’t ask for much. (And Lincoln was–and still is–treated much as Trump has been, I know.)

    This.

    Being overly idealistic about everything is a huge mistake right now. There is so much government in so many things are so screwed up right now. I hate the ACA but there is no way in hell we can’t have some form of universal coverage going forward, for example.

    Trump as a bonus brought attention to China, the media, and so forth as a bonus.

    • #173
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So their statements in social media are not admissions against interest by a party opponent, and thus not hearsay by definition? Also, during the Senate Trial, we will have have bunches of confirmation.

    Unlike you, I’m willing to wait for any trial and official findings. I’m not foolish enough to think everyone who invaded the Capitol did so with the same purpose. And, unlike you, I don’t lionize the Capitol in comparison to small businesses across the country.

    I really recommend that everybody listen to Mark Levin on this last night. About 20 minutes into the first hour he starts reading an article with a bunch of facts about this by John Solomon. The article would be good but Levin’s commentary is always excellent. 

    Basically, it looks like it was organized, they had excellent intelligence, and everybody in charge in DC failed to heed a bunch of warnings about how to get ready for it, especially Pelosi. I’m not exactly sure how the chain of command works, but the Sergeant at arms reports to Pelosi and they did not listen to any inputs. She could be panicked about the impeachment as a distraction.

     

    • #174
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    In case anybody was wondering, this is one stop shopping on why Never Trump is wrong about everything.

     

    https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-victor-davis-hanson-podcast/episode-50-no-umbrage-zone-the-left-left-out/

     

    • #175
  26. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So their statements in social media are not admissions against interest by a party opponent, and thus not hearsay by definition? Also, during the Senate Trial, we will have have bunches of confirmation.

    Unlike you, I’m willing to wait for any trial and official findings. I’m not foolish enough to think everyone who invaded the Capitol did so with the same purpose. And, unlike you, I don’t lionize the Capitol in comparison to small businesses across the country.

     

    I also noticed over these past few years @hoyacon  that you are not someone who calls themself one thing while being something else entirely. Gary Robbins is in everything he does a Democrat because when it comes to the bottom line, he votes for the Democrat. That is his prerogative, of course. What I find amusing and sometimes aggravating is that Gary calls himself a Reagan Republican. Wow, Gary, who ya kiddin’?

    • #176
  27. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So they were there to clean up the place and the zip ties were for the trash bags, right?

    Speculation works for you, but not for me. I know investigations and trials are inconvenient for those who jump to conclusions. It’s so much easier to not have to think.

    Part of thinking is being able to look at evidence, recognize it as such, and come to conclusions. Trials and investigations are to establish specific criminality. I don’t have to wait for them to understand that the rioters weren’t there to exchange brownie recipes with Nancy Pelosi.

    Part of thinking is also knowing when the evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion. In my experience, the faster that process occurs, the less reliable the conclusion. You’re predisposed to view this a certain way, so you’re going to consider what you want when you want, and pretend it’s enough. I prefer to wait. I’ve never had a problem with that.

    Hoyacon, the problem is that Trump has the nuclear codes and is acting erratically. The events of January 6, 2021 are clear to see to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, to use a biblical phrase. We don’t need proof to the ultimate degree.

    This argument is pretty weak sauce.  Trump is the first President in a long time who did not get us into a new conflict in a new country, he is not predisposed to attack other countries.

    Who is it that you think he would choose to launch a missile at, I mean I am going to need a specific country, who does Trump hate that bad?

    Do you really think, no matter who the President is, that the military will accept, with out any reasonable provocation, that an order out of the blue to launch a nuclear missile is a lawful order? 

     

    • #177
  28. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    “Always accuse the opponent of doing the terrible things you are doing yourselves.”  Democrat Party Alynski playbook.

    Trump has 75 million supporters. At least half, probably many more, are avid supporters. By impeaching this man six days before he is lawfully leaving office, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and the ten Republicans are inciting violence. They are purposefully telling those tens of millions of citizens that they do not matter. They are telling them they are scum and dumb. They are provoking an estranged and violent backlash. They are doing exactly what they accused President Trump of doing. They should all be prosecuted if even one Trump supporter performs an illegal act of protest.

    • #178
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    cdor (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    There is absolutely no evidence of their intent, so that’s not yet established. And your attempt to prioritize the Capitol over the ruination of small businesses and the families who own them is typically tone-deaf.

    So their statements in social media are not admissions against interest by a party opponent, and thus not hearsay by definition? Also, during the Senate Trial, we will have have bunches of confirmation.

    Unlike you, I’m willing to wait for any trial and official findings. I’m not foolish enough to think everyone who invaded the Capitol did so with the same purpose. And, unlike you, I don’t lionize the Capitol in comparison to small businesses across the country.

     

    I also noticed over these past few years @hoyacon that you are not someone who calls themself one thing while being something else entirely. Gary Robbins is in everything he does a Democrat because when it comes to the bottom line, he votes for the Democrat. That is his prerogative, of course. What I find amusing and sometimes aggravating is that Gary calls himself a Reagan Republican. Wow, Gary, who ya kiddin’?

    Nobody.  Except himself, I suppose.

    • #179
  30. FloppyDisk90 Member
    FloppyDisk90
    @FloppyDisk90

    cdor

    “Always accuse the opponent of doing the terrible things you are doing yourselves.”  Democrat Party Alynski playbook.

    Trump has 75 million supporters. At least half, probably many more, are avid supporters. By impeaching this man six days before he is lawfully leaving office, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and the ten Republicans are inciting violence. They are purposefully telling those tens of millions of citizens that they do not matter. They are telling them they are scum and dumb. They are provoking an estranged and violent backlash. They are doing exactly what they accused President Trump of doing. They should all be prosecuted if even one Trump supporter performs an illegal act of protest.

    I honestly don’t know where to even begin with this.  It’s *exactly* the same argument the Left makes when justifying BLM/Antifa.  

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.