-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
January 6th hearings
- Thread starter Deleted member 586536
- Start date
- Views 25,401
- Replies 528
- Likes 2
Big gangsta shit
He refused to release his footage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Earle_Sullivan#cite_note-marantz-4
"
John Earle Sullivan (born July 18, 1994),[1] also known as Jayden X,[2][unreliable source?] or Activist John,[3] is a political activist and self-identified photojournalist who participated in the 2021 United States Capitol attack.
Before the January 6 attack, Sullivan organized and participated in protests relating to the Black Lives Matter movement, though BLM organizers explicitly disavowed him, even expelling Sullivan from rallies and warning fellow activists to avoid associating with Sullivan.[4][5]
On January 6, Sullivan entered the Capitol and broke a window. He repeatedly shouted encouragement to fellow rioters. Sullivan captured footage of the attack, his own interactions with law enforcement, and the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.[6]"
BLM organizers and protesters disavowed him. Perhaps double check on people your talking about before saying their affiliated and trying to throw the entire thing under the bus wrongfully?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/when-reporting-becomes-a-defense-for-rioting
"He has tried to associate himself with the Black Lives Matter movement, but many organizers have disavowed him; others have gone further, accusing him of being an “agent provocateur,” a “con artist,” or a “thrill-seeking instigator.”
I found it quite interesting that the committee has apparently moved on from the actual events of January 6, and instead moved the goalposts to concentrate on alleged efforts by Trump and company to influence electors or have state governors certify their own 'faithful' electors who could be depended on to vote for Trump. This was the big headline on all the news sites today, i.e. focus shifts.
Interesting because 1) what the hell does this have to do with January 6 events, really?, and 2) the Clinton campaign and DNC, Media Matters, MoveOn, and other sources of "Progressive" power engaged vociferously in a similar campaign in 2016 to get electors to vote for Clinton despite the vote tally in their respective states. This was a big story at the time, liberal pundits on the TV and internet bent over backwards to defend those advocating for it, and rationalize the validity of the attempt as something the law would totally permit if the electors decide to vote their consciences, yada yada. It didn't pan out in the end, but neither did Trump's attempt.
Interesting because 1) what the hell does this have to do with January 6 events, really?, and 2) the Clinton campaign and DNC, Media Matters, MoveOn, and other sources of "Progressive" power engaged vociferously in a similar campaign in 2016 to get electors to vote for Clinton despite the vote tally in their respective states. This was a big story at the time, liberal pundits on the TV and internet bent over backwards to defend those advocating for it, and rationalize the validity of the attempt as something the law would totally permit if the electors decide to vote their consciences, yada yada. It didn't pan out in the end, but neither did Trump's attempt.
Everything. It was all part of the same concerted effort by Trump to overturn the election by any means necessary.
The Clinton campaign conceded the election pretty much immediately. As for talk by others about faithless electors in 2016, that was a conversation about the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, since Clinton won the popular vote.
Your comments, aside from being whataboutism, are false.
Clinton did it, as well as McCain, Bush...
Just by this phrase of yours we can pinpoint the hole from where US democracy is bleeding.
On the long run I believe that US democracy will be fine tho, but US citizens needs to keep their eyes open.
If you want to call the former president and his supporters clowns, I'd agree with you.
People can care about more than one thing. It's pretty telling that the only rebuttal to the January 6 hearings appears to be pointing at something else and saying, "Hey, look over there!"
The faithless elector effort in 2016 was specifically about preventing Trump from becoming President despite the outcome of the election. That's why they called themselves "Hamilton Electors." Federalist 68. It wasn't about the Electoral College being unfair or undemocratic. That was just a pretext in the media. Hamilton defended the Electoral College as superior because it gave the electors a final chance to defy the voters if they elected an unfit person. Again, that's why the 10 electors who ultimately voted against their state's result called themselves Hamilton Electors.
The Clinton campaign wouldn't comment or denounce the effort and just waited to see whether the Hamilton Electors could really pull it off and force the election into the House. They maintained plausible deniability, and the media gave cover. Of course we all know the Clinton campaign was entirely on the up-and-up, entirely trustworthy.
I'm not defending Trump's actions after the 2020 election. But the Democrats' feigned outrage that their opponent tried to wrangle the rules and coerce a technical win out of a loss is laughable.
And the use of "whataboutism" as a defense of hypocrisy is akin the Wizard of Oz warning Dorothy not to look behind the curtain.
Yeah it was.
Clinton conceded the election almost immediately, and nobody serious thought she had any chance of winning once the race was called for Trump. There was no real effort to change the results of the election, and there was definitely no effort by the Democratic Party or Clinton campaign. Hell, the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party didn't even attempt recounts; that was Jill Stein.
You're acting like a fool if you think this is anything other than a false equivalent.
The Democratic Party has never tried to steal an election. The Trump campaign has, and the Republican Party has largely endorsed it.
There is no hypocrisy, and you're pretty much yelling, "What about...?" Lol.
Edit: Whether or not someone is acting hypocritically (they aren't) would also be irrelevant to whether or not it's whataboutism.
Please provide one example in modern history of the Democratic Party trying to steal an election. I've already explained how 2016 certainly doesn't work as an example.
You may not think you're defending Trump's actions in 2020, but that's what you're doing when you're arguing a false equivalency.
It's a sad day when acknowledging the timeline of the 2016 election is characterized as "too ideologically entrenched."
Next time, you might just want to not respond. It'd be less embarrassing for you. Congratulations on getting us to talk about anything other than January 6 though. Mission accomplished.
Jan 6 hearings, are nothing but a political stunt from the Dems. Every sane person can see this and it won't make any difference come november when people vote in the mid term elections. The dems are uterlay crap at running a country and it's not just people in the USA that are suffering due to their crazy policies. There's a red wave comming and the sooner the better.
okay so please explain to me why Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Luie Gohmert, Scotty Perry, Majorie Taylor Green ALL where looking for pardons ONTOP OF Mo brooks, sending an email on jan 11, 2021, asking for "all purpose" pardons for every lawmaker who objected to electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
Why the fuck would you randomly ask for a pardon if you did nothing wrong
That's the kind of shit you do when you know you did something illegal, and your looking for a way out before it becomes a problem.
It seems you have already been brainwashed by the left so no matter what anyone tells you it will make no difference to what you already believe. I won't waste my time explaining anything to you about anyone else or their actions as it's not my place to do that. I will tell you that throughtout the world - Biden is seen as a senile old twat with dementia, he has no grip on reality, can barely string a sentence together without messing up and is despised throughout the world and is seen as corrupt as is his crackhead son. As for the other dems - these are some of the most corrupt American politicians I have seen in my lifetime (Clinton should be in prison for treason).
I'll repeat again - these hearings are nothing more than a clown circus to try and detract from the poor way that USA is currently being run. They are fooling nobody with a functioning brain and the dems will find this out in November.
I'm going to ask you again, because IDC what democrats think. Why the fuck was those individuals looking for a presidential pardon. You don't look for a pardon unless you did something illegal. You can call me branwashed, but that's not going to change the facts here, that those individuals looked for a pardon after January 6th. If you can't answer it, then don't bother responding. Because I'm not taking a response that is the equivalent of "LOOK OVER HERE"
I already said this:
I won't waste my time explaining anything to you about anyone else or their actions as it's not my place to do that.
I am sure thye have their reasons though.
Their reasons was for january 6th according to a interview with Mo brooks.
here's when it starts.
2:51:23
Crazy that someone would look for a pardon after instigating a false claim about an election and participating in Janaury 6th. Maybe, just a crazy thought, they did something illegal or that could be prosecuted from January 6th. Just a thought.
Similar threads
-
- Portal
- No one is chatting at the moment.
