January 6th hearings

[Deleted member 586536]

I'm surprised that this hasn't been created a threat yet for it.
Hearings and Trials are different. Hearings are used before courts or higher body (In this case, before referring to to the Department Of Justice)

Since this is a ongoing thing, I'll be updating this thread with edits with later hearings. With timestamps for when the hearing starts. (since a lot of news stations like talking before the actual hearings start.)
1st hearing

timestamp is 1:06:41 for those where the link isn't working correctly
2nd hearing

timestamp 31:08
3rd

timestamp 52:17
4th

5th day

time stamp 37:27
Surprise hearing (6th hearing)

7th hearing

8th

9th (timestamp:1:30:10)


final hearing

 

[Creamu]

It's just a scripted reality TV spectacle. Nothing will come of it.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

It's just a reality TV spectacle. Nothing will come of it.

DOJ is asking for transcripts
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267
so no, not spectacle. If the department of justice is asking for it, without even being referred, it means they have a ongoing investigation already ongoing most likely.
Edit: here's npr https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105...wants-to-see-the-jan-6-committees-transcripts

 

[Creamu]

DOJ is asking for transcripts
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...-request-for-jan-6-panel-transcripts-00040267
so no, not spectacle. If the department of justice is asking for it, without even being referred, it means they have a ongoing investigation already ongoing most likely.
Edit: here's npr https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105...wants-to-see-the-jan-6-committees-transcripts

All of this is designed to occupy your mind with stuff that will lead to literally nothing. I have heard the first season of true detective should be good. Just a suggestion.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

All of this is designed to occupy your mind with stuff that will lead to literally nothing. I have heard the first season of true detective should be good. Just a suggestion.

Have you watched the hearings yourself? If not, why? Was it because someone told you to not watch it? If so, why did they tell you to not watch it?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

All of this is designed to occupy your mind with stuff that will lead to literally nothing. I have heard the first season of true detective should be good. Just a suggestion.

Because I'm under the impression someone or more so a political ideology told you to not watch the trial for yourself, because it's "nothing"
If someone tells you something is nothing or not worth your time, you should always check at least once, using your ears and head to decide if it really is nothing.
And in my case I took what time I had to watch it, and it's definitely not nothing. There's a fuck ton of new evidence that I hadn't even heard or seen.

 

[Creamu]

Have you watched the hearings yourself? If not, why? Was it because someone told you to not watch it? If so, why did they tell you to not watch it?

In Philadelphia, liberals gather to experience the first Jan. 6 hearing together

About an hour before the first prime time hearing of the House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol, people began to trickle into the courtyard of a northwest Philadelphia church.


They were there for a community watch event, one of roughly 90 organized by liberal activists, urging people to gather to watch the rare, televised evening hearing together.


"I expect to be shocked, and I didn't want to be shocked at home by myself," said Melanie Brennan, who lives in the Mount Airy neighborhood where the event was being held.

Brennan came to the watch event with a friend, Chauncey Harris. He had high expectations, and said that former President Donald Trump had evaded consequences for too long.

"I hope for now they'll be able to show people what the truth is, so we can get rid of our personal opinions and just judge the facts on the facts," he said before the hearing began. "That's what I hope happens. I hope we can get some justice in this country"

[...]

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/10/1104...o-experience-the-first-jan-6-hearing-together

This is a media spectacle and is not meant to put your attention on to anything of consequence, to the contrary.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

This is a media spectacle and is not meant to put your attention on to anything of consequence, to contrary.

It appears to me you didn't bother reading your own article
"They were there for a community watch event, one of roughly 90 organized by liberal activists, urging people to gather to watch the rare, televised evening hearing together."
Keywords "activists"
Of course people are going to group up, that's what people, you know, do??? social species? we coordinate? Unless your telling me you don't interact with anyone at all.
That doesn't make it a "media spectacle" because people decided to group, and urge people to watch hearings. That's like saying if activists go request people to do a sit in, and they do it, that it's "spectacle" it's not.
it's to get a point across.
Or it's like saying that when pearl harbor happened and everyone listened in, or got together to hear it that it's a "media spectacle" for the speech.
Edit:
I'll ask it again, have you seen it yourself? At least produce your thoughts after watching. Since if it's so bs, you should be able to point to when or how it's bs/media spectacle with timestamps for each time.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

snipped for double

 

[Creamu]

Or it's like saying that when peral harbor happened and everyone listened in, or got together to hear it that it's a "media spectacle" for the speech.

Pearl habor was used to convince the american populus to engage in warfare with japan. The american leaders had foreknowledge of the attack but did not intervene.

You are convinced that this obvious media specticale is meant to infrom you. Maybe after the dust has settled you can reevaluate.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

You are convinced that this obvious meda specticale is meant to infrom you. Maybe after the dust has settles you can reevaluate.

Let me repeat my question, since you've dodge it. Have you watched it yourself?
If your party tells you it's nothing, and you listen to it, and do nothing to double check it. then well... this applies to you

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy." --George Orwell

You are refusing to read, look, or watch material necessary to make your own judgement. You are deciding to listen to that party, and believe that 2+2=5, or that this hearing is nothing. You are not looking to challenge it. That is in itself, genuinely Orwellian.
I actively avoided listening to any media figure heads talking about the trial. I didn't want them to make my decision or hear snippets or clips of it. The whole thing. Why? So if those same figure heads says something bs, or out of context I can challenge it, I can also decide if it really is bs by how much filler there is. And there isn't a whole lot of filler in this hearings from a critical standpoint.

 

[Creamu]

Let me repeat my question, since you've dodge it. Have you watched it yourself?

No.

If your party tells you it's nothing, and you listen to it, and do nothing to double check it. then well... this applies to you

I have no party. Parties are there to occupy your mind with a fake conflict. The romans and greeks understood this as the caduceus, it is an ancient trick.
Also check:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/left-vs-right-the-hidden-tribes-study.613949/
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-u-s...-way-back-from-the-brink-yascha-mounk.613693/

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy." --George Orwell

The american left and right are the same. The left is moving foreward and the right is following with a little bit of latency.

You are refusing to read, look, or watch material necessary to make your own judgement. And instead, you are listening to a ideology, with nothing to challenge it. That is in itself, genuinely Orwellian.

I know this bullshit too well, that is all.

I actively avoided listening to any media figure heads talking about the trial. I didn't want them to make my decision or hear snippets or clips of it. The whole thing. Why? So if those same figure heads says something bs, or out of context I can challenge it, because it doesn't hurt to double check if you were wrong.

The TV will not educate you.

 

[Creamu]

Hey,

look at this media event as long as you enjoy it. If you don't like it I strongly recommend you being extra critical about whether the whole thing is a sham. If you come to the conculsion that it is a sham, you can move on.

 

[Creamu]

The Orwell version was cooler if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The TV will not educate you.

No TV generally won't. But if we have literately 6 days of hearings, the DOJ asking for call transcripts from said hearings. AND new evidence live? That's no longer "just TV" that is a historical event happening.

have no party. Parties are there to occupy your mind with a fake conflict.

Bullshit on your claim that you have no party. You can push yourself away from one as much as you want. But I'm pretty sure you politically align with one. why?

No

and this is why. Right wingers commonly state they do not have a party. Even myself, someone who does not like democrats or republicans. I have a party. Which is green party. That is the party I most closely align with on a ideological level.
Within your ideology, fox news, their go to source, did not air it. Stating it was a sham. This is the reason why I could tell before you even said no, that you did not watch it.

If you don't like it I strongly recommend you being extra critical about whether the whole thing is a sham. If you come to the conculsion that it is a sham, you can move on.

"if you come to my conclusion, then we can move on" that's a gross strongman argument from someone who has not even looked at the material.

If this is as much of a sham as you think it is, then go watch it. Seriously, prove it to me that's it's a sham. Go point by point on how the hearing is wrong. If you cannot do that, then your not using your brain. You are turning it off, and differing to listening to whoever is in your circle without question. And that's extremely dangerous.

 

[MariArch]

Lmao. If you're still talking about 500 people going into the capital and dancing on Nancy Pelosi's desk more than a year later you're a schizo. While Americans are paying double on gas than last year and inflation is going through the roof, democrats can't help but talk about Trump. Being this out of touch with the people whilst we're on the brink of recession is going to cost them big at the ballot box in 2022 and 2024.

 

[Creamu]

No TV generally won't. But if we have literately 6 days of hearings, the DOJ asking for call transcripts from said hearings. AND new evidence live? That's no longer "just TV" that is a historical event happening.

It's a sham, but you will see for yourself. You are intelligent and strongwilled, I hope you will put it to good use.

Bullshit on your claim that you have no party. You can push yourself away from one as much as you want. But I'm pretty sure you politically align with one. why?

This is how they look to me:

and this is why. Right wingers commonly state they do not have a party. Even myself, someone who does not like democrats or republicans. I have a party. Which is green party. That is the party I most closely align with on a ideological level.
Within your ideology, fox news, their go to source, did not air it. Stating it was a sham. This is the reason why I could tell before you even said no, that you did not watch it.

"if you come to my conclusion, then we can move on" that's a gross strongman argument from someone who has not even looked at the material.

It's not an argument it's more of a bet. See for yourself. You will see.

If this is as much of a sham as you think it is, then go watch it. Seriously, prove it to me that's it's a sham.

I believe you will come to that conclusion without me holding your hand. Hey, maybe I'm wrong, you'll be the judge.

Go point by point on how the hearing is wrong. If you cannot do that, then your not using your brain. You are turning it off, and differing to listening to whoever is in your circle without question. And that's extremely dangerous.

We need to focus on things that matter.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The Orwell version was cooler if you ask me.

Think you missed a image

Body armor, guns.

Tell me, do leftists come with body amor and riot shields when "peacefully protesting?"

Do leftists shout to hang current officials?

Does leftists shout about how they are going to go "hunting" of their other peers with a fucking shot gun?
How about the conflation of terms?
"Has no tagging and bagging limit"
In that specific phrasing
means people. Not animals. Hunting people. Actual hunters will say bag limit. Not bagging limit.
All of these people are part of the same ideology. It's consistently consistent with each other,and consistently inconsistent on policy.

 

[Creamu]

Think you missed a image
View attachment 314789
Body armor, guns.
View attachment 314790

Tell me, do leftists come with body amor and riot shields when "peacefully protesting?"

Do leftists shout to hang current officials?

Does leftists shout about how they are going to go "hunting" of their other peers with a fucking shot gun?
How about the conflation of terms?
"Has no tagging and bagging limit"
In that specific phrasing
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tagging and bagging
means people. Not animals. Hunting people. Actual hunters will say bag limit. Not bagging limit.
All of these people are part of the same ideology. It's consistently consistent with each other,and consistently inconsistent on policy.

FBI arrests Antifa/BLM activist for participation in Capitol riot, seen on video inciting people to “get this s—t burned.”

https://notthebee.com/article/fbi-a...n-video-inciting-people-to-get-this-st-burned

 

[alt_Human]

Tip. Just let this entire thread just die. It's pointless. People aren't going to see eye to eye. Youi'd think the right would start to question why while the rest of the world is watching the hearings, Fox continues to air re-runs of Biden falling on his bicycle. But nope. Convincing the Always Trumpers will NEVER happen. Anyone trying is wasting their time.