Do you think that the January 6th hearings should be televised in prime time?

Do you think that the January 6th hearings should be televised in prime time?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

kidfury

Duke status
Oct 14, 2017
25,016
10,763
113
The term at the time was "alternate slate of electors". The left is trying to change the language to make it sound more sinister than it was at the time.


You sure are putting a lot of energy into keeping Trumby from being permitted to be on the ballot for the voters to decide. Traditionally in this country we don't have the government go after political rivals like this after and before an election. That's 3rd world sh!t. What are you afraid of?
I'm very afraid of the woke left pendulum backlash. I don't want to have to write they/them /theirs and wear a unisex uniform
 

sussle

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Oct 11, 2009
8,432
7,825
113
The term at the time was "alternate slate of electors". The left is trying to change the language to make it sound more sinister than it was at the time.
the term at the time was a euphemism for electoral fraud. the term "phony electors" is completely accurate and is as sinister as it sounds because it was an attempt to circumvent the legal electoral process.
 

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
54,796
16,676
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
the term at the time was a euphemism for electoral fraud. the term "phony electors" is completely accurate and is as sinister as it sounds because it was an attempt to circumvent the legal electoral process.
But you and your ilk are acting like its something brand new that this committee just uncovered as some sort of blockbuster. That's just more dishonesty from this partisan committee and fools like you lap it up and spew it out. It was widely reported on at the time, debated and ultimately didn't happen. Now you're trying to spin it and criminalize what was debated and ultimately didn't happen.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
88,954
17,993
113
No, I didn’t realize that the sitting President has previously pressured states to come up with fake electors and pressure the vice President to not certify with the real electors, and instead count the fake ones.

I didn’t realize the sitting President continued to very publicly call the election stolen After investigating allegations and finding nothing and after his advisors told him the election was not stolen

i also didnt realize that the sitting President, for months leading into the election, said that if he looses the election it’s because of fraud

so yeah, I didn’t realize that
id be interested to learn more about when in history any of that happened

would you please enlighten me?
Every single loser has contested the new President since the Clinton administration

Why do you think he was impeached? Why do you think there was the 2000 recount? Why do you think there was the Birtherism movement? Why do you think there was the RUSHA nonsense?

Same sh!t, different tactic
 

hal9000

Duke status
Jan 30, 2016
56,331
16,782
113
Urbana, Illinois
But you and your ilk are acting like its something brand new that this committee just uncovered as some sort of blockbuster. That's just more dishonesty from this partisan committee and fools like you lap it up and spew it out. It was widely reported on at the time, debated and ultimately didn't happen. Now you're trying to spin it and criminalize what was debated and ultimately didn't happen.
you're confused again. the sitting potus and his men tried to install fake electors because the president wanted to pick the next president.

never in America's history has this been done.

it was the only non-peaceful transfer of power in our history
 

sussle

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Oct 11, 2009
8,432
7,825
113
But you and your ilk are acting like its something brand new that this committee just uncovered as some sort of blockbuster. That's just more dishonesty from this partisan committee and fools like you lap it up and spew it out. It was widely reported on at the time, debated and ultimately didn't happen. Now you're trying to spin it and criminalize what was debated and ultimately didn't happen.
i didn't know about it - did you? and since it's a conspiracy to commit election fraud, discussing it and attempting it (which they did) is a crime. so you see, i don't need to criminalize it - your team already did that for me :roflmao:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chile Verde

sussle

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Oct 11, 2009
8,432
7,825
113
A. I don't believe you. B. If you really weren't aware you weren't paying much attention to the news in late 2020.
so you did know about it? yet not a peep about the fraudulent nature of the whole scheme. you're so wildly inconsistent on this whole electoral fraud thing - it's as if you only care about it when it's not your team attempting to perpetuate the fraud. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chile Verde

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
54,796
16,676
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
so you did know about it? yet not a peep about the fraudulent nature of the whole scheme. you're so wildly inconsistent on this whole electoral fraud thing - it's as if you only care about it when it's not your team attempting to perpetuate the fraud. :rolleyes:
There was even at least one thread about it on here in mid/late December of 2020. Plenty of news coverage too. You're being played.
 

Phi1

Phil Edwards status
May 21, 2002
6,943
3,436
113
Hell Cajon, Ca
Traditionally in this country we don't have the government go after political rivals like this after and before an election. That's 3rd world sh!t. What are you afraid of?
Wait, is GromsDad part of the RESIST crowd now? A nevertrumper?

:roflmao:

Barr said that he became "livid" after finding out Trump told Zelensky that he would be getting Barr to reach out to the Ukrainians regarding investigations into Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden, per NBC News.

Describing the plan as a "harebrained scheme," Barr added that Trump "never really had a good idea of, you know, the role of the Department of Justice [and] to some extent, you know, the president's role," per the outlet.
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Kento and sirfun

sussle

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Oct 11, 2009
8,432
7,825
113
Traditionally in this country we don't have the government go after political rivals like this after and before an election. That's 3rd world sh!t. What are you afraid of?
Traditionally in this country we don't have the losing party attempt to circumvent legitimate Presidential Election results by engaging in fraud, racketeering, falsified documents/credentials etc etc. That's 3rd world sh!t.

Of course it's criminal and of course it should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. But your team would not participate in the inquiry in good faith, when invited, and now will not testify under oath without threat of prosecution.

what are you afraid of?