US Elections (& Politics) :)

gwminor48

Known around here
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
3,622
Reaction score
6,898
Location
Texas

David L

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
7,932
Reaction score
20,757
Location
USA
Hope everyone has a nice Valentines Day, we need to step back and thank our wifes who have put up with us all these years...I know if I were married to me I would of divorced myself a long time ago :) Kudos to my Wife...
I am headed out, on this very cold morning, to get her breakfast before she wakes up :) Believe me, my making us breakfast would not start the day off good LOL
 
Last edited:

TonyR

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
16,451
Reaction score
38,164
Location
Alabama
This article names the turncoats at the top part of the page:
Thanks for this info.

7 Republicans Join Democrats in Voting to Convict Former President Trump

According to the article, the 7 are: Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) voted to convict Trump in a charge of incitement of insurrection.

The article states quotes from the following 2 senators:

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): “President Trump incited the insurrection against Congress by using the power of his office to summon his supporters to Washington on January 6th and urging them to march on the Capitol during the counting of electoral votes. He did this despite the obvious and well known threats of violence that day.”

Me: Ah, yes...sour grapes from 2012. Cry baby Romney never got over it.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.): "Trump “incited a violent insurrection against his own government because he did not like the outcome of a free and fair election.”

Me: Fair and free? In what world? Maybe inthe Bizarro World of DC Comics! (Bizarro World defined here for some younger folks).

The article also states "....Eight other Republicans had indicated they were open to convicting Trump or had not ruled it out, but ultimately voted to acquit."

Me: Yeah, they were covering their butts because their constituents would rightfully vote 'em out otherwise.
 

Oceanslider

Known around here
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
23,601
Location
Southern California, USA
The Dems have lost ALL my trust in ANYTHING they say or present...With every speech/statement I quickly assume it is a LIE before they even finish their sentence.

I remember Snopes.com at one time being a source to verify if a post/e-mail was true. Well add them to the long list of Untrusted Sites out there who are spreading Lies, crazy huh, they have become the very thing they were setup to expose.


I have not used Snopes in many, many years anyway...
Braterman the atheist who wrote the article...
““We don’t derive our morality from God. None of us do. We derive it from social norms, and our shared humanity, and then use gods to rationalise it … No, I’m not going to give you a recipe for finding meaning. You have to find your own . . . I have seen, and heard of, horrible things, and if I did believe in God, I would indeed hate him.””
Marxist beliefs in a nutshell. He hates God, don’t let him fool you.
 

TonyR

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
16,451
Reaction score
38,164
Location
Alabama
This is an interesting read. Mike Strickland was prosecuted and found guilty, by a judge not by a jury, for defending himself from a group of violent, masked thugs in Oregon. His case is not going to the US Supreme Court.

Northwest Observer
An excerpt:

"Judge Ryan specifically said this is not about what other people were doing to me, but about what I did. He essentially refused to consider self defense as a concept, since self defense is entirely predicated on the actions of other people. "
My jaw dropped when I read that. Ryan needs to change his title from "Judge" to "Robed Moron"...................gimme a frickin' break. WTF? :wtf:
 

Oceanslider

Known around here
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
6,906
Reaction score
23,601
Location
Southern California, USA
This might be one of the best interviews I have seen in ages. VanderVeen tears into this CBS news anchor for bullshit loaded questions. Fuck this is good!

Excellent what he said, except for the "you guys got to start reporting more like PBS" LOL . Yeah more like yamiche alcindor , and the rest of the leftist reporters there LOL. I personally think that all public tax payer funds should be pulled from CPB.

In fact, I was pissed when they the RINOS let the marxistcrats put like 80 million into one of the stimulus packages. If any public entity like CPB and is outshoots show bias they should get all tax payer funding pulled.
 
Last edited:

sebastiantombs

Known around here
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
11,511
Reaction score
27,690
Location
New Jersey
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
14,738
Location
South Dakota

David L

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
7,932
Reaction score
20,757
Location
USA
This might be one of the best interviews I have seen in ages. VanderVeen tears into this CBS news anchor for bullshit loaded questions. Fuck this is good!


Here is a YouTube link if that works better for anyone...

WOW, I totally agree. I think EVERY one needs to call out the Media, as he did. Brilliant!!!
 

Parley

Known around here
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
5,604
Reaction score
15,939
Location
Cypress, California
The New York Times Retracts the Sicknick Story

In a quiet but stunning correction, the New York Times backed away from its original report that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by a Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher during the January 6 melee at the Capitol building. Shortly after American Greatness published my column Friday that showed how the Times gradually was backpedaling on its January 8 bombshell, the paper posted this caveat:


UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.
The paper continued to revise its story within the body of the original January 8 story: “Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.”

What’s missing, however, is how the Times first described what happened to Sicknick. “Mr. Sicknick, 42, an officer for the Capitol Police, died on Thursday from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials.”

The account of Sicknick’s death was reported as fact, not speculation or rumor. Further, it appears that the anonymous sources were not law enforcement officials but people “close” to the police department—which means they could have been anyone from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inveterate liar U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to the Democratic mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser.

Not only was the Times’ untrue story about Sicknick’s death accepted as fact by every news media organization from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, political pundits on the NeverTrump Right also regurgitated the narrative that Sicknick was “murdered” as did lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

In an outrageous effort to create more favorable optics before the impeachment trial, House Democrats honored Sicknick in a rare memorial at the Capitol Rotunda on February 3. Joe Biden, in a statement issued after Donald Trump was acquitted Saturday afternoon, repeated the lie about Sicknick. “It was nearly two weeks ago that Jill and I paid our respects to Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who laid in honor in the Rotunda after losing his life protecting the Capitol from a riotous, violent mob on January 6, 2021.”

The Times’ correction might be one reason why Democrats on Saturday reversed their demand to subpoena witnesses. House impeachment managers cited the original January 8 Times’ article as evidence in their impeachment memo: “The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

Any arrangement to compel testimony would have provided Trump’s legal team with an opportunity to expose yet another myth in the Democrats’ “incitement” case against the former president.

Now that the Times has essentially retracted its explosive article, will other news organizations, pundits, and lawmakers follow suit? Unfortunately, like so many media-manufactured stories about Donald Trump and his supporters, millions of Americans already believe the Sicknick story as truth; even a Times’ correction won’t change their minds.

The truth in all matters related to Donald Trump is only of secondary concern, if at all. And once again, reporters who egregiously exploited a man’s untimely death to score political points against a man they revile won’t be held accountable. Another hoax down the memory hole.

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Riot - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

My Comment: Now that the 2nd Trump impeachment trial has failed the NYT feels free to retract another one of their lies. There were Democrats on this forum who spouted this lie including that "goldwing" character.
 

David L

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
7,932
Reaction score
20,757
Location
USA
The New York Times Retracts the Sicknick Story

In a quiet but stunning correction, the New York Times backed away from its original report that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by a Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher during the January 6 melee at the Capitol building. Shortly after American Greatness published my column Friday that showed how the Times gradually was backpedaling on its January 8 bombshell, the paper posted this caveat:




The paper continued to revise its story within the body of the original January 8 story: “Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.”

What’s missing, however, is how the Times first described what happened to Sicknick. “Mr. Sicknick, 42, an officer for the Capitol Police, died on Thursday from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials.”

The account of Sicknick’s death was reported as fact, not speculation or rumor. Further, it appears that the anonymous sources were not law enforcement officials but people “close” to the police department—which means they could have been anyone from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inveterate liar U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to the Democratic mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser.

Not only was the Times’ untrue story about Sicknick’s death accepted as fact by every news media organization from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, political pundits on the NeverTrump Right also regurgitated the narrative that Sicknick was “murdered” as did lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

In an outrageous effort to create more favorable optics before the impeachment trial, House Democrats honored Sicknick in a rare memorial at the Capitol Rotunda on February 3. Joe Biden, in a statement issued after Donald Trump was acquitted Saturday afternoon, repeated the lie about Sicknick. “It was nearly two weeks ago that Jill and I paid our respects to Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who laid in honor in the Rotunda after losing his life protecting the Capitol from a riotous, violent mob on January 6, 2021.”

The Times’ correction might be one reason why Democrats on Saturday reversed their demand to subpoena witnesses. House impeachment managers cited the original January 8 Times’ article as evidence in their impeachment memo: “The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

Any arrangement to compel testimony would have provided Trump’s legal team with an opportunity to expose yet another myth in the Democrats’ “incitement” case against the former president.

Now that the Times has essentially retracted its explosive article, will other news organizations, pundits, and lawmakers follow suit? Unfortunately, like so many media-manufactured stories about Donald Trump and his supporters, millions of Americans already believe the Sicknick story as truth; even a Times’ correction won’t change their minds.

The truth in all matters related to Donald Trump is only of secondary concern, if at all. And once again, reporters who egregiously exploited a man’s untimely death to score political points against a man they revile won’t be held accountable. Another hoax down the memory hole.

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Riot - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

My Comment: Now that the 2nd Trump impeachment trial has failed the NYT feels free to retract another one of their lies. There were Democrats on this forum who spouted this lie including that "goldwing" character.
The TRUTH Always comes out in the end...
 

sebastiantombs

Known around here
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
11,511
Reaction score
27,690
Location
New Jersey
The TRUTH Always comes out in the end...
If only that were, indeed, true.

I listened to a podcast by Dinesh Dsouza yesterday. He discussed the whole Sicknick story and said that Sicknick actually died on the evening of January 7, 2021, not the evening of the riot. To be honest I haven't researched the actual time of his death so take that fact with some caution. He also mentions that there is "speculation" that he may have died from an adverse reaction to tear gas or bear spray. Of course, that speculation is probably supported by un-named, anonymous sources, like someone my brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws, great aunt, twice removed, heard from their local Marxist.
 
Top