House Select Committee Hearings on Jan. 6 (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Optimus Prime said:
    More crazy pastors
    ===============

    Trump cultist MAGA pastor calls Cassidy Hutchinson a ‘lying witch’​


    Gustaf Kilander - Washington DC


    Small town Mississippi preacher turned viral video MAGA pastor Shane Vaughn blasted former Trump staffer Cassidy Hutchinson in an unhinged rant after the ex-aide to then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows shared explosive testimony with the House Select Committee investigating the attack on Congress on January 6 2021.

    Mr Vaughn called Ms Hitchinson a “little witch,” among other things, during a video posted on FirstHarvest.tv, which has since made the rounds on Twitter.

    “Standing there lying on the President of the United States of America, the only legitimate one, and you’re sitting there lying through your teeth because you are a witch,” he yells in the video. “You are a rebellious Jezebel with your little lezzie spirit.”

    “You look like you’re a walking zombie. You lie. You lie. You lie. You lie. We know you lied. You know you lied. You’re a liar,” he added…….

    www.independent.co.uk

    Trump cultist MAGA pastor calls Cassidy Hutchinson a ‘lying witch’

    ‘You are a rebellious Jezebel with your little lezzie spirit’
    www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
    Click to expand...
    Another example of why religious institutions should not be tax exempt. Many of them are little more than tax shelters for political groups.
     


    Liz is exactly right, but the majority of Rs have already looked away. They are failing to speak out about the egregious excesses of DeSantis, who is the next Trump. They haven’t learned anything.
     
    MT15 said:


    Liz is exactly right, but the majority of Rs have already looked away. They are failing to speak out about the egregious excesses of DeSantis, who is the next Trump. They haven’t learned anything.
    Click to expand...


    Dear Milquetoast Merrick. Even if you don't think the criminal case is airtight&bulletproof, if you put Trump on the stand he WILL perjure himself. Then you have him.
     
    BullSheetBuddha said:
    This could go into numerous threads but I'll put it here. It's a good piece from The Economists that I think most of us know is true but is rarely stated so clearly and unquestionably.
    ======================================================


    "The courage of Cassidy Hutchinson

    Even without Donald Trump, says our departing columnist, the Republican Party may be unreformable​

    Jun 30th 2022
    Americans learned something shocking from Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony to the January 6th committee this week, but it was not about Donald Trump. The fact that the 45th president is vile and corrupt was clear long before he won the Republican nomination in 2016. What was more remarkable about the 26-year-old former White House aide’s account of events before and during the Capitol Hill riot was that someone so embedded in Trumpworld had the moral compass to provide it.

    Matter-of-factly, Ms Hutchinson described overhearing Mr Trump being informed that the maga crowd had guns and in response suggesting it be allowed to keep them. That was before he instructed its members to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell”. She told the committee that she heard Mr Trump had to be restrained by his security detail after he tried to lead the mob there. No one with her proximity to the president had broken ranks so devastatingly. ....................

    ...............................

    Neither will Mike Pence, whom Mr Trump slammed on Twitter even as the maga mob were baying for him to be hanged. Mr Trump thought he perhaps deserved to be, Ms Hutchinson told the committee, on which just two of the 210 Republican House members are serving. Few of the party’s leaders have to this day denounced Mr Trump. And some of them, including Mitch McConnell and Bill Barr, say they will still vote for him if he is the Republican candidate in 2024. Most Republican voters want him to be.

    This embrace of the unconscionable by millions of otherwise reasonable Americans is by far the biggest novelty of the Trump era. By comparison, the paranoia and bigotry of the Capitol Hill rioters was old hat. Around a quarter of Americans have always expressed such sentiments. They represent the “paranoid style” in American politics described by the sociologist Richard Hofstadter, in a famous essay on the populist eruptions inspired by Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and through American history. The current eruption, Mr Trump’s maga base, represents around half the Republican coalition. Yet the real puzzle is why the other half, including amiable conservatives up and down the country, have gone along with it. They are why Mr Trump succeeded where Goldwater failed, why he remains such a threat; and no political question has exercised your columnist more.

    Economic privation was an early explanation—which never squared with the gleaming trucks parked outside Mr Trump’s rallies. Disinformation and racism were more convincing suggestions, but insufficient. Many Republicans knew all along what Mr Trump was; many are not racist. The main reason for Republicans’ capitulation to Mr Trump is simpler. They hate their political opponents, who are his main enemy, which made him their friend. Political scientists have a term for such hyper-partisanship, “affective polarisation”, and it is far more pronounced on the right than on the left. Swathes of white America are resentful and fearful of diversity, rampant liberalism and other big ways in which America is changing, which they blame on the left. This cultural outlook has become the main difference between the two parties. Whereas Democrats are positive about America’s multiracial future, most Republicans say the country is “in danger of losing its culture and identity”. Mr Trump agreed, swore to fight back and they loved him for it.

    Not all societies undergoing disruptive change succumb to demagogues. And America has unusual defensive strengths, including the vigour of its economy, institutions and civil society. Provided Mr Trump can be stopped, which seems likelier than not, it is in theory easy to think that the right will return to sanity. Yet the reality looks darker, partly because of the structural advantages that are sparing Republicans the electoral reckoning their dalliance with Mr Trump merits. Republicans are getting more power than the Democrats through the electoral college and Senate with fewer votes. And they were successfully compounding that undemocratic edge through all manner of ways to defy the majority, from judicial activism to gerrymandering, even before Mr Trump took it a stage further by trying to steal an election."

    https://www.economist.com/united-st...keting-cloud&utm_term=7/1/2022&utm_id=1222418
    Click to expand...
    Maybe some folks call it "affective polarisation” I'd call it a personality cult.
     
    DaveXA said:
    Sure, I guess the question is would he actually ignore his legal counsel in that situation. I sure hope he does because I'd love to see Trump make a fool of himself and go to jail because of it.
    Click to expand...

    In the best of worlds, Trump would have an aneurysm as the prosecutor described his 'treasonous, pathetic, incompetent, feckless' attempts to overturn a legitimate election because he 'lost so clearly and completely, like a chump'.
     
    SamAndreas said:
    Maybe some folks call it "affective polarisation” I'd call it a personality cult.
    Click to expand...
    I looked up "affective polarisation” and found this interesting, and most likely accurate considering my sense of what's going on:



    "Over-time shifts in affinity for one’s own party and animosity toward the other party have not been symmetric2,4,10,11. Indeed, out-party animus has increased dramatically in recent years2,4 while in-party warmth has, if anything, slightly declined over the same time period10. Consistent with evidence of increasing out-party animosity, individuals report that they are less likely to date those from the other party12, they would pay out-partisans less for the same work13 and they would prefer not to have out-partisans as roommates14. Furthermore, those with higher levels of out-party animosity report engaging in more discriminatory behaviour against those from the other party (for example, they do not want to work with those from the other party)15. Out-party animus, rather than in-party favouritism, is key to these associations in the literature11."

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01012-5
     
    Last edited:
    DaveXA said:
    Garland: Did you order a code red?! incite the coup?!

    Trump: You're GD right I did!

    Yeah, I can see it...:hihi:
    Click to expand...
    Fixed

    you could get this response to dozens of questions:

    Did you know the Russians were meddiling in the election to your benefit?

    Did you intentionally mock that disabled reporter?

    Did you know you lost to Biden fair and square?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom