Ray got picked on because he's Ray and it was happening long before 2016 and Ray's foray into talking politics.

Some people probably crossed the line (wasn't in the threads only heard about it) in regards to Snapper and how his religious beliefs shape his political views. But that wasn't everybody here doing that or even lots of hardcore leftists doing it. It was individuals being stupid all on their own.

SBB? Really? You're sticking up for SBB?

Has it ever occurred to you why OT-P was nearly free of anyone on the right by the time it got nuked?

Because there wasn't a lot of them to begin with and they never left.

I think Snapper might have been the only guy that swore off OTP.

Ray wasn't really on the right. He was largely apolitical. What he loved was Donald Trump. But he was there until the end. Yankee Clapper was there until the end. David was there until the end. DLF was there until the end. Don't know if Kehoskie was there at the end but he generally only showed up during presidential election years. I think you usually did a drive by at that point. And Harveys was dead by that point.

Ray wasn't really on the right. He was largely apolitical. What he loved was Donald Trump.

And owning the libs. Even when he was on their side, like with abortion rights and gay marriage.

Of course, because those commenters on the right were always made to feel most welcome. LOL. There's a reason why I took a couple of long sabbaticals from this site, including when OT-P still existed.

Lefties here have a blind spot about the continual ad hominems from their side, or perhaps more accurately, it simply doesn’t bother them. It should be embarrassing that some are so substance-free, but apparently that’s the best they can do. Sad.

Once Trump became the nominee, JE abandoned his "Trump is a clown" act and went all in, because "her emails".

Incorrect. Like many Vichy Republicans, he was anti-Trump until November 8, 2016, because he thought Trump was going to lose. It was only after Trump won that he decided that principles were too costly.

Several people here have mentioned that insults directed toward Snapper crossed a line. People said that back then as well. Plenty of people thought Sam was ridiculous and said so. So no there wasn't a blind spot.


People from all sides of the political spectrum took time off from OTP. It was not unique to one side nor was one particular side the sole cause for these sabbaticals.

Lefties here have a blind spot about the continual ad hominems from their side, or perhaps more accurately, it simply doesn’t bother them. It should be embarrassing that some are so substance-free, but apparently that’s the best they can do. Sad.

Well said, Clapper. Also, my apologies for not including your handle among those repeatedly on the receiving end of personal attacks. You've certainly earned those stripes. :)

Lefties here have a blind spot about the continual ad hominems from their side, or perhaps more accurately, it simply doesn’t bother them. It should be embarrassing that some are so substance-free, but apparently that’s the best they can do. Sad.

JE gives away the game by calling everyone radical leftists, except Andy which he calls an old time liberal Democrat. If Andy, who supported Elizabeth Warren, the very epitome of a radical leftist, in 2020, is not himself a radical leftist, then no one is. But he met and likes Andy, so he gets a pass, and those of us who oppose his political views who he has never met, are worthy of his highest scorn, and shows that his epithets are substance free.

JE, I sure you that most of us that you call radical leftists are to the right of Andy.

It was only after Trump won that he decided that principles were too costly.

Right, because the heartbreaking financial struggles experienced by Kristol, Nichols, Boot, Steele, Rubin, Carpenter, Tyler, Navarro, and more recently, Goldberg, Hayes, and Farrah are so well documented.

I notice you didn't actually deny that you abandoned what your claimed were your principles because Trump won.

Just out of curiosity, Jason, who would you like to see win in that Wyoming GOP House primary? Cheney or one of the MAGA candidates?

ABC.

Maybe it's because I'm extremely pissed at Jordan Montgomery tonight, but I have no idea what that answer means in relationship to my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.

If you lived in Wyoming, would you vote for Liz Cheney in the GOP House primary?

Anyone but Cheney. ABC

But he met and likes Andy,

So what? Andy is a nice guy (both here and in person) who, endorsements aside, sounds more like Bill Maher than Warren. Meanwhile, I have hung out with Lassus. I have hung out with Mouse. I even had drinks with Sam before he started pimping violence against political opponents.

I notice you didn't actually deny that you abandoned what your claimed were your principles because Trump won.

What's to refute? The comment was ridiculous on its face.

112. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 26, 2022 at 09:32 PM (#6088418)
I notice you didn't actually deny that you abandoned what your claimed were your principles because Trump won.

Because he's weak. He can't directly defend his position and instead points at others.

I think the so what is that since you like Andy you don't want to throw the usual insult at him that you do for everyone else that you disagree with politically here and since you won't brand him a hardcore leftist no one else here can be either or you're just using the term as an insult.


That's a long sentence.

Sam is completely performative.

...I have no idea what that answer means in relationship to my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.

Because he's weak. He can't directly answer your question and specify who he'd vote for.

Maybe it's because I'm extremely pissed at Jordan Montgomery tonight,

Is he available to pitch tomorrow too?

JE gives away the game by calling everyone radical leftists, except Andy which he calls an old time liberal Democrat. If Andy, who supported Elizabeth Warren, the very epitome of a radical leftist, in 2020, is not himself a radical leftist, then no one is. But he met and likes Andy, so he gets a pass, and those of us who oppose his political views who he has never met, are worthy of his highest scorn, and shows that his epithets are substance free.

I'll freely admit my crush on Elizabeth Warren, but once I got it through my thick skull that she wasn't electable, my backup candidate was Biden. And in 2016 I was always for Hillary instead of Sanders. AFAICT I've only been blocked by various wokesters, maybe because I detest all forms of Cancel Culture and herd opinion, no matter which direction it's coming from.**

Basically I'm a standard issue Democrat who above all wants Democrats to attain a big enough majority to render the Manchins and Sinemas powerless to obstruct, and to pass protections for voting rights, abortion rights, and the rights of sexual minorities. If you think I'm a radical leftist, then you must never have met an actual radical leftist.

** Well, with the exceptions of Nader and Stein voters, who should be rounded up and thrown off the Empire State Building.

I think the so what is that since you like Andy you don't want to throw the usual insult at him that you do for everyone else that you disagree with politically here and since you won't brand him a hardcore leftist no one else here can be either or you're just using the term as an insult.

I am friendly with Andy in no small part because he does *not* engage in ad hominem attacks. See how that works?

As for why I don't group him in with hardcore leftists, on balance his comments sound more like Maher than Warren.

If you think I'm a radical leftist, then you must never have met an actual radical leftist.

I don't think you are. I think you are closer to that than any of the rest of us.

...I have no idea what that answer means in relationship to my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.

Because he's weak. He can't directly answer your question and specify who he'd vote for.

Or maybe he just thinks voting decisions should be kept private. (smile)

I am friendly with Andy because he does *not* engage in ad hominem attacks. See how that works?

Do you not see how this does not help your argument? "I call people radical leftists because they insult me."

BTW, Misirlou, nowhere on this thread did I classify everyone not named Andy as a hardcore leftist.

Do you not see how this does not help your case?

It's adorable that you continue to insist that Andy is some sort of radical.

If you think I'm a radical leftist, then you must never have met an actual radical leftist.

I don't think you are. I think you are closer to that than any of the rest of us.

I don't take that as an insult, but I have noticed on discord that with the exception of the Bobbsey Twins David and dlf, I've mostly been attacked (or blocked) by the Left for agreeing that Cancel Culture poses a problem for Democrats.

(Not that I think that any of them are "radical leftists", either. They're more like garden variety snowflakes of the liberal variation, quick to take offense at non-wokester opinions.)

Andy is in favor of rent control, capping business profits, capping college tuition costs, and universal free healthcare. I and most of your antagonists are in favor of one of those things, at most.

Plenty of people thought Sam was ridiculous and said so.

And far more remained silent, or dismissed his comments as ‘performance art’. Let’s remember, Sam managed to get himself banned by BBTF. That’s not easy to do!

I don't take that as an insult, but I have noticed on discord that with the exception of the Bobbsey Twins David and dlf, I've mostly been attacked (or blocked) by the Left for agreeing that Cancel Culture poses a problem for Democrats.

That stuff is irrelevant minutia. Support for rent and profit control are of >>> greater importance.

I notice you didn't actually deny that you abandoned what your claimed were your principles because Trump won.

What's to refute? The comment was ridiculous on its face.

Still not a denial. Nothing to refute, because it's true. Up until the election, you were sure Trump was going to lose, so it was safe for you to claim to be against Trump. The moment he won, you decided, for one species of venality or another, to support him.

Or maybe he just thinks voting decisions should be kept private. (smile)

It's kind of cute that the bloke who stalks me on Twitter was convinced I was ducking your question. FFS, even Sean figured it out.

Still not a denial

Even more cute is witnessing you here and elsewhere behave as if social media banter is exactly like arguing a case before a judge.

The moment he won, you decided, for one species of venality or another, to support him.

Feel free to peruse my comments here from November 2016 through the end of 2017 and then come back to apologize. Take your time.

It's kind of cute that the bloke who stalks me on Twitter was convinced I was ducking your question.

And yet you didn't answer the question. Because you never address anything directly. Weakness prevails. Which is almost as cute as a middle-aged man like yourself linking your Twitter account from your business site and having a quote in the bio that includes, "Even great men have to pee."

BTW, Misirlou, nowhere on this thread did I classify everyone not named Andy as a hardcore leftist.

So name names. We can take it.

So name names. We can take it.

In #51 and 53, JE labeled me, Robbo, and Bivens "hard-left sociopaths," which is impressive since I made no mention of politics. When called out on that fact JE became suddenly mute. Or, as he likes to sarcastically say, [crickets]. He is constitutionally incapable of honesty or straightforwardness. More weakness.

And yet you didn't answer the question. Because you never address anything directly. Weakness prevails. Which is almost as cute as a middle-aged man like yourself linking your Twitter account from your business site and having a quote in the bio that includes, "Even great men have to pee.

Oh yeah, you are so not creepy.

Bivens I can see. I don't know you or Robbo.

So name names. We can take it.

Feel free to review the thread.

Oh yeah, you are so not creepy.

Search this site for your Twitter handle. You thought it was a great idea to share it.

hello boyz

i guess i must be one of the hardcore leftists? what's the difference between a democrat, a leftist, a radical leftist and a hardcore leftist, anyway?

i bleeve in religious freedom including the right to be not a christian - unsurprised margery green and loren bobert have now decided to include "christian" in their party description. i like JE and wish he would see that White nationalists are now what rules the republican party and that they are basically nazis and do NOT like jewish people, along with the rest of us who are not White. they "support" jerusalem just like the crusaders did and they weren't exactly fighting for jewish people to be able to run that city. hating muslims does not mean liking jews. the rightys don't like people who are not straight or cis, and they believe in the inferiority of females too, don't never forget that.

i bleeve healthcare should be for everyone and paid for by taxes and that the rich and that corporations should pay a lot more taxes. youse guys got NO idea how terrible it is here, even in librill wealthy yewstin for people who are not rich - i mean, even "public health" you gotta pay for. i just do not get the rural republicans. i guess the need to hate non-Whites is much greater than the need for healthcare seeing as how 1 of 4 (or is it 1 of 3) counties here got no hospitals.

are we really supposed to keep pretending there is no evidence of global warming? srsly are we supposed to leave nothing but burnt up or flooded earth for our kidz? rightys treat the environment and non-human creatures like the scorched earth policy. not a good thing.

i can't find even one issue that could interest me in a modern republican - WHAT could possibly interest any Black person? its all about hating other people and having guns and enjoying killing, hopefully other people. like Jesus preached.

and cancel culture is disgusting. and the rightys got their own kind of cancel too, so this is not just lefty snowflakes. omg, we can't hear about slavery, it was, um, migration, yeah thats the story and we sticking to it because otherwise some White people might think that there is something wrong with pimping folks who backed jim crow, not just outright owning other humans.

YR's treatment of snapper was beyond disagreement with a religious belief. theres catholic church policies i don't like, too, but snapper is a good man and theres no need to do him like YR did. i don't agree with snapper about a lot of things but thats ok, he's still a good person.

i love me some sam H too. he's a good man too. and i miss harvey somethin awful.

it should be ok to disagree with people about stuff without having to also insist on trying to destroy their entire self

Search this site for your Twitter handle. You thought it was a great idea to share it.

How did I come to the conclusion that you're a hard-left sociopath? It's a mystery!

How did I come to the conclusion that you're a hard-left sociopath? It's a mystery!

Got me. I don't discuss my (or others') politics online. But your ongoing use of sarcasm is noted. More weakness as it's never used to actually have a discussion.

I cannot agree with BBC in 143 enough.

it should be ok to disagree with people about stuff without having to also insist on trying to destroy their entire self

Thanks. We'll continue to disagree on much without being disagreeable.

JE labeled me, Robbo, and Bivens "hard-left sociopaths," which is impressive since I made no mention of politics.

Who are you trying to kid? Your posts are nothing but insults, apparently because you don’t like JE’s political comments, but hardly redeeming if you’re merely motivated by extreme pettiness.

Okay, just call me a BBC Democrat, although I saw YR as more of a provocateur than as a serious religious bigot. I miss his over the top persona.

Andy is in favor of rent control, capping business profits, capping college tuition costs, and universal free healthcare. I and most of your antagonists are in favor of one of those things, at most.

Guilty in many cases,** not guilty, not guilty, guilty as charged. You're conflating my moral objections to profiteering with proposals that the government should intervene to control them.

Same thing with college costs: I've noted many times that they've skyrocketed out of control, and yes, I've also advocated returning to tuition-free or radically reducing tuition costs at state colleges and universities. But not for private schools.

** Specifically in areas where landlords hire goons to remove tenants in rent controlled units, so they can convert the buildings to luxury condominiums. That sort of behavior shouldn't be rewarded.

I don't take that as an insult, but I have noticed on discord that with the exception of the Bobbsey Twins David and dlf, I've mostly been attacked (or blocked) by the Left for agreeing that Cancel Culture poses a problem for Democrats.

That stuff is irrelevant minutia. Support for rent and profit control are of >>> greater importance.

On one level of course they are, but the inanities of Cancel Culture (the liberal version) are still worth mocking because they give the other "cancellers" (the right wing version) too many easy opportunites to paint actual liberals as a bunch of moronic snowflakes. In the long run it's hard to overstate the corrosive effect of this sort of ideological bullying, and AFAIC liberals dismiss it at their peril.

(And obviously that doesn't mean that the right wing cancellers shouldn't be mocked for their sanctimonious hypocrisy, of which there are a few zillion examples.)

-------------

Or maybe he just thinks voting decisions should be kept private. (smile)

It's kind of cute that the bloke who stalks me on Twitter was convinced I was ducking your question. FFS, even Sean figured it out.

Look, I love elliptical allusions as much as the next person, but I still don't know whether you'd vote for Cheney in the Wyoming GOP primary. Can't you just choose "Yes, I would", or "No, I wouldn't"? It's not really that complicated a question.

Never ceases to amaze me
Over a pandemic and a disease that don't care about your politics
But here we are
OTP gone, but not forgotten
Despite the fact the alleged worst of the OTP now talk elsewhere
YMMV, but really, truly? It doesn't

Perhaps our great experiment is at an end
Really, 2 and half centuries is a good run!
Our downfall isn't unique
Just classify some "other"...
Excuse the excess because "those people" are just...
Contrary to *real* America (real men, real whatever)
They must be stopped at any cost...
Stopped *at any cost*, even principles

Lines increasingly get drawn over who, not what
It's an ideology bereft of anything good or positive -
Kvetch about the gameshow host?
Enemy of the state

Very sad.
It has no mooring
Can't tell you what it supports or opposes
Has no other master, only enemies
Yuck

Look, I love elliptical allusions as much as the next person, but I still don't know whether you'd vote for Cheney in the Wyoming GOP primary. Can't you just choose "Yes, I would", or "No, I wouldn't"? It's not really that complicated a question.

No, I wouldn't.

EDIT: (smile)

re: 149,

Read #114 again, Andy. Any controversial politician whose last name begins with the letter C gets some ABC reaction. Remember Jimmy Carter in the late primaries in 1976? It’s not a new expression.

I can only assume one who previously supported Liz Cheney but now doesn't must be really upset over flip-flopping on gay marriage, given it's the only real difference between the Liz Cheney of 10 years ago and the Liz Cheney of today.

Your posts are nothing but insults, apparently because you don’t like JE’s political comments....

Politics has nothing to do with my comments. It's all about--as I mentioned earlier--JE's persistent use of "sarcasm, whataboutism, ad hominims, etc." These are explicitly destructive strategies and they're nearly all he deploys. That is unhelpful behavior in any field, politics or otherwise, and their use never aims to improve anything but one's sense of self.

Look, I love elliptical allusions as much as the next person, but I still don't know whether you'd vote for Cheney in the Wyoming GOP primary. Can't you just choose "Yes, I would", or "No, I wouldn't"? It's not really that complicated a question.

No, I wouldn't.

EDIT: (smile)

Okay, so you wouldn't support a conservative Republican with an 80%+ Heritage voting record who's running against a variety of MAGA supporters. Why not? What's she done that you object to, other than to tell the truth about Trump and his role in 1/6?

I don't want to alarm anyone, but I think the adjective 'controversial' may be taking performance enhancing drugs.

What's she done that you object to, other than to tell the truth about Trump and his role in 1/6?

Never mind that the J6 Committee is a farce -- and sorry, you don't have to be a Trump sycophant to have recognized that from day one -- but even from a Wyoming perspective, Cheney has made perfectly clear that the interests of her constituents are subservient to her obsession with Trump.

And just as a reminder, raising Trump's profile, convinced he would be easy pickings in the general election, is how America got Trump in the first place.

re: 154,

Give it a rest. Your highly selective concern about ‘sarcasm’ doesn’t justify your nasty personal attacks. You’re practically in stalker territory.

I think it's kind of amusing that people that have been on this site for around 20 odd years are now suddenly acting like they've been victims this whole time

but even from a Wyoming perspective, Cheney has made perfectly clear that the interests of her constituents are subservient to her obsession with Trump.

The only interest of her constituents that she ignores is their wish that Trump was successful in hijacking in '20. Other than that, she voted mostly with all things Trump wanted.

Incorrect. Like many Vichy Republicans, he was anti-Trump until November 8, 2016, because he thought Trump was going to lose. It was only after Trump won that he decided that principles were too costly.

I guess that's more accurate, especially once he saw that Trump would be Bibi's ####### buddy.

No, I wouldn't.

EDIT: (smile)

QED.

What's she done that you object to, other than to tell the truth about Trump and his role in 1/6?

Never mind that the J6 Committee is a farce -- and sorry, you don't have to be a Trump sycophant to have recognized that from day one

You could've fooled me. Are Paul Gigot and Rupert Murdoch now radical leftists?

but even from a Wyoming perspective, Cheney has made perfectly clear that the interests of her constituents are subservient to her obsession with Trump.

By that sort of logic, you would've been compelled to support the late John Rankin, the congressman from Mississippi who referred to Walter Winchell as "a communistic little kike", or pretty much any politician of the 30's and 40's whose anti-semitic views faithfully represented the views of their constituents. Whatever happened to the thought that congressmen / congresswomen should be something more than a Charlie McCarthy to their constituents' Edgar Bergen?

Never mind that the J6 Committee is a farce -- and sorry, you don't have to be a Trump sycophant to have recognized that from day one

One doesn't have to be a Trump sycophant to "recognize" that; one could also be a traitor to the United States.

-- but even from a Wyoming perspective, Cheney has made perfectly clear that the interests of her constituents are subservient to her obsession with Trump.

What "interests of her constituents" are being subordinated by her "obsession" with Trump?

And just as a reminder, raising Trump's profile, convinced he would be easy pickings in the general election, is how America got Trump in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that in fact that's not how America got Trump in the first place. Nor is it relevant to anything now; Trump's profile can't get any higher.

you don't have to be a Trump sycophant to have recognized that from day one

You are Trump sycophant though (in that you don't care about anything he did between Election Day and J6 and would happily vote for him in 2024). I'm not sure how you can say with any confidence what a non Trump sycophant believes.

Never mind that the J6 committee is a farce... because I can't explain why, so just never mind. That would work better.

And I see that this is being used to hide the real news again. France is critically short of mustard and is blaming ... Canada.

So again it's Canada! (In this case a bad harvest last year. France gets 80% of their mustard seed from Canada)

And just as a reminder, raising Trump's profile, convinced he would be easy pickings in the general election, is how America got Trump in the first place.

Those left-wing sociopaths that are everywhere are even more powerful than we thought! They are also responsible for both Liz Cheney and her opponents, I guess. Can't beat the Deep State apparently.

One doesn't have to be a Trump sycophant to "recognize" that; one could also be a traitor to the United States.

Right, half of the voters in the country are traitors. Ya know, it's also a mystery why few take libertarians seriously.

What "interests of her constituents" are being subordinated by her "obsession" with Trump?

It's not complicated. She made it crystal clear during interviews that Trump was her no. 1 issue.

I'm pretty sure that in fact that's not how America got Trump in the first place. Nor is it relevant to anything now; Trump's profile can't get any higher.

All Trump all the time is the no. 1 factor in how Trump became the nominee of the party. Of particular interest right now is the orgasmic delight expressed by the usual suspects in banning Trump from Twitter because he's such an existential threat, then moments later breathlessly posting every comment he makes anyway.

Heck, ask yourself why, if Trump and his minions represent the end of the Republic, the Democrats are pimping MAGA candidates in GOP primaries?

Why, it's almost as if...

You are Trump sycophant though (in that you don't care about anything he did between Election Day and J6 and would happily vote for him in 2024). I'm not sure how you can say with any confidence what a non Trump sycophant believes.

Of course, I said neither of those things.

You could've fooled me. Are Paul Gigot and Rupert Murdoch now radical leftists?

You need to get out a little more, Andy. The world hasn't revolved around Murdoch editorial pages for quite some now.

Never mind that the J6 committee is a farce... because I can't explain why, so just never mind. That would work better.

What's this? Are you now claiming total ignorance of my J6-related thoughts elsewhere?

By that sort of logic, you would've been compelled to support the late John Rankin, the congressman from Mississippi who referred to Walter Winchell as "a communistic little kike", or pretty much any politician of the 30's and 40's whose anti-semitic views faithfully represented the views of their constituents. Whatever happened to the thought that congressmen / congresswomen should be something more than a Charlie McCarthy to their constituents' Edgar Bergen?

I'm not following. Are you suggesting Hageman is a rabid antisemite? Or is merely voting for a Trump-backed candidate in a primary somehow the equivalent of supporting one?

From my recollection your thoughts and backup are the same elsewhere. A request to "stop the circus" over Huchison's claims which have since been confirmed. Farce and circus would seem to require more than feels to confirm.

Much like the lack of complication over what you find crystal clear yet refuse to offer receipts for regarding Cheney's dereliction of her constituents.

The world doesn't revolve
Hated elites lie
It lurches
So sayeth the Q

If you'd only expand your mind
Supper on some pizzagate posobiec

View some Greenwald
Intake some Alex Jones
Consider some Torba and Kirk
How about some Taibbi
Yesterday's gone

From my recollection your thoughts and backup are the same elsewhere.

The undisputed champion of substance-free commentary here and on FB (falsely) accusing me of the practice is the chef's kiss.

From my recollection your thoughts and backup are the same elsewhere. A request to "stop the circus" over Huchison's claims which have since been confirmed. Farce and circus would seem to require more than feels to confirm.

Yes. How long has it been since some unnamed source within the USSS denounced Hutchinson's testimony and said the agents involved were eager to testify to that fact under oath? And still crickets. One would think that at least one Trump supporter would be eager to go on the record under oath and contradict all the lies. Yet the silence (except for the safe and cowardly sniping from the sidelines) is deafening.

Projection is all Jason has. The devolution is kind of sad. Maybe once Trump is gone there will be a new enlightenment (but I am not holding my breath).

A request to "stop the circus" over Huchison's claims which have since been confirmed.

Wait, what? Her claims that someone informed her that Trump lunged at the steering wheel have been confirmed? Yeah, please do share.

Maybe once Trump is gone there will be a new enlightenment (but I am not holding my breath).

LOL. Every GOP POTUS nominee for the past several decades has either been painted as a war criminal, slaveowner, dictator, or all of the above.

And we're already seeing it with DeSantis.

Keep crying wolf, Mousie!

How long has it been since some unnamed source within the USSS denounced Hutchinson's testimony and said the agents involved were eager to testify to that fact under oath? And still crickets.

So let there be subpoenas. And why didn't the J6 folks ask these agents about what Hutchison claimed she heard when they were interviewed the first time?

So let there be subpoenas. And why didn't the J6 folks ask these agents about what Hutchison claimed she heard when they were interviewed the first time?\

Because of the unidirectional nature of time.


As for subpoenas:
(a) I'm not sure why you think the issue is important enough to justify them; there's no dispute about the outlines of what happened in the SUV: that Trump wanted to go lead the attack and that the Secret Service wouldn't take him there. The only dispute is how physical the confrontation got. (And there's not actually a dispute about that because Hutchison only was relaying what she was told, not reporting what she knew.)

(b) The relevant Secret Service agents are already lawyered up about the deleted text messages, so they're not going to answer questions.

LOL. Every GOP POTUS nominee for the past several decades has either been painted as a war criminal, slaveowner, dictator, or all of the above.

I was talking about you, not the GOP candidates.

And we're already seeing it with DeSantis.

Feel free to quote everything I have ever said about DeSantis. Or any time I have called any GOP candidate for President a "war criminal, slaveowner, dictator, or all of the above", I will wait.

Well, with the exceptions of Nader ... voters, who should be rounded up and thrown off the Empire State Building.

You've had 22 years to get over this ####. Two words -- Joe. Lieberman. If Gore was so clueless & easily misled as to be prevailed upon to (of course, if the idea was actually his it's even worse) pick that ####### idiot as his running mate, there's not a helluva lot of evidence he'd have been any better than Bush when push came to shove.

The only thing more boring than relitigating the 2000 election is doing so with the 2016 election. OK, it is a tie.

#178. Actually her claim is that Tony Ornato told her this. She wasn't there.

That doesn't mean that particular part happened as we often use a little hyperbole in recounting interesting stories.

And while Tony Ornato has denied saying anything like that he hasn't chosen to do so under oath. (He did claim to be willing to say so under oath but when actually invited to do so declined.)

That there was some kind of angry exchange in the car has been confirmed. The lunge claim is a salacious detail. The important point (which to my knowledge has not been denied) is that Trump really wanted to go to the hill.

Instead we've got the relevant agents lawyering up (to be clear, this is something anybody should do when their name comes up in any kind of investigation. In itself this signifies nothing) -- and the text messages from that time frame (which could have shed light on this and other things) are gone. And a criminal investigation of the Secret Service has started -- which is a weird thing to say.

And yes, it's all sorts of problematic to attempt to compel testimony from a Secret Service agent on a protective detail. I'd think the negotiations on what can and can't be discussed would have to be protracted.

Right, half of the voters in the country are traitors. Ya know, it's also a mystery why few take libertarians seriously.

"Half of the voters" don't think the J6 committee is a "farce." That's wish casting on your part.

What "interests of her constituents" are being subordinated by her "obsession" with Trump?

It's not complicated. She made it crystal clear during interviews that Trump was her no. 1 issue.

Non-responsive. What interests of her constituents are being subordinated? What isn't she doing for them that she could be doing if she weren't "obsessed" with Trump? (I mean, I don't accept your framing, since her constituents have the same number one interest that we all do: preventing an overthrow of the government. But even if that weren't their biggest interest, your claim requires that she not be doing something for them that she would be if not for Trump. And what's that?)

Heck, ask yourself why, if Trump and his minions represent the end of the Republic, the Democrats are pimping MAGA candidates in GOP primaries?

Because they're shortsighted morons. They actually are putting themselves over the interests of their constituents.

You could've fooled me. Are Paul Gigot and Rupert Murdoch now radical leftists?

You need to get out a little more, Andy. The world hasn't revolved around Murdoch editorial pages for quite some now.

Yet another trademarked JE dodge. Whether "the world has revolved around Murdoch editorial pages" wasn't the issue. (Did it ever?) The issue was whether everyone thinks J6 is a farce.

By that sort of logic, you would've been compelled to support the late John Rankin, the congressman from Mississippi who referred to Walter Winchell as "a communistic little kike", or pretty much any politician of the 30's and 40's whose anti-semitic views faithfully represented the views of their constituents. Whatever happened to the thought that congressmen / congresswomen should be something more than a Charlie McCarthy to their constituents' Edgar Bergen?

I'm not following. Are you suggesting Hageman is a rabid antisemite?

I'll take your word that you wouldn't support an open anti-semite.

Or is merely voting for a Trump-backed candidate in a primary somehow the equivalent of supporting one?

When the alternative is a lifelong conservative whose main "defection" is speaking the truth about Trump and the efforts to minimize his role in 1/6, it's hard to avoid such an inference. What other possible explanation could there be?

Oh, and here's what Hageman's been saying lately, just in case it's escaped your attention:

“I heard and believed the lies the Democrats and Liz Cheney’s friends in the media were telling at the time, but that is ancient history as I quickly realized that their allegations against President Trump were untrue,” Hageman told the Times.

“He was the greatest president of my lifetime, and I am proud to have been able to renominate him in 2020. And I’m proud to strongly support him today.”

And then there's this:

Hageman said there were “serious concerns” about the 2020 election and said Republicans were being targeted for “exercising their first amendment rights”.

She also cited a film, 2000 Mules, which claims to prove Democratic voter fraud but which has been debunked.

When she's claiming "first amendment" victimhood for insurrectionists, and citing a Dinesh D'Souza movie as evidence, you know she's hit rock bottom.

Feel free to quote everything I have ever said about DeSantis. Or any time I have called any GOP candidate for President a "war criminal, slaveowner, dictator, or all of the above", I will wait.

Thankfully, I only returned to this dystopian hellscape a few weeks ago and have no idea what you've said about RDS.

The point still stands. Every GOP candidate for POTUS is deemed more incredibly dangerous than the one before.

The issue was whether everyone thinks J6 is a farce.

The issue is that many folks who aren't Trump loyalists also believe the J6 Committee is a farce.

Non-responsive.

It's not enough to listen to her own words? Shrug.

The undisputed champion of substance-free commentary here and on FB (falsely) accusing me of the practice is the chef's kiss.

The person who had a tantrum because I would post factually detailed rebuttals of your links to Federalist screeds on FB, calling it "filibustering," then labeling everything shorter than that "substance free," is certainly something Alanis Morissette would be interested in.

That there was some kind of angry exchange in the car has been confirmed. The lunge claim is a salacious detail. The important point (which to my knowledge has not been denied) is that Trump really wanted to go to the hill.

To be clear, the salacious detail was all anyone focused on for the first 72 hours or so of this second-hand claim.

It's not enough to listen to her own words? Shrug.

Not if those words don't answer the question you were asked, no, it isn't.

The issue is that many folks who aren't Trump loyalists also believe the J6 Committee is a farce.

Sure. There must be at least 6 or 7 such people scattered across the continent.

"Every GOP candidate for POTUS is deemed more incredibly dangerous than the one before."

Well, every single president since about FDR has grown the power of the executive branch and diminished the power of the other branches and states. This has been sped up over the last couple of decades. So quite literally it's true that every single GOP candidate for POTUS has been more dangerous than the last from that perspective.


But in terms of the spirit of the line I'd say Bush II was more dangerous to democracy than Dole. Romney was probably not and I don't think anyone claimed Romney was going to end democracy. Trump is and was most certainly more dangerous than Romney.

The person who had a tantrum because I would post factually detailed rebuttals of your links to Federalist screeds on FB, calling it "filibustering," then labeling everything shorter than that "substance free," is certainly something Alanis Morissette would be interested in.

After multiple warnings, you were tossed off for repeatedly resorting to personal insults against me and others who challenged your ridiculous claims. There's a reason why Lassus, for all of his antics, remains.

Not to be forgotten of course would be the fact that Huchison is merely a small percentage of the the entire hearings, the rest of which has been, uh, totally circussed by... things. Various things that are totally circusy circus farces.

#190 Name them.

Well, there's Abe Froman. . .