The Next President is...

[brickhistory]

Biden 2020:  I have a plan to shut down the virus.

Biden 2021:  The states have to solve this.

Also Biden:  I'm mandating everyone in the executive branch get a vaccine.  As well as everyone who works at a company with more than 100 employees.  And anyone who has a federal contract. 

But not any illegal aliens who cross the border.  Or Afghans that I let in with no screening.  
If the mandate was such a great idea, why not go the full monty and make it nationwide/everybody?

I hope SCOTUS hands him his ass.  But I'm not sure they will.  Thanks, John Roberts!

Latest trial balloon is the vaccine will be required to travel interstate.

Again, hello, SCOTUS?

[Sim]

2 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Biden 2020:  I have a plan to shut down the virus.

Biden 2021:  The states have to solve this.

[kaputt]

The only benefit of Twitter is that it is an absolute gold mine of political incompetence and foot in mouth moments. 

I can't believe we're only at a year of this clown show. 

[ClearedHot]

[brickhistory]

15 hours ago, kaputt said:

 

I can't believe we're only at a year of this clown show. 

For that dementia patient, it probably still feels like the first week a la "Fifty First Dates."

But at least there are no mean tweets.  Of course, he couldn't figure it out to send one, but still...

[M2]

23 hours ago, kaputt said:

I can't believe we're only at a year of this clown show. 

Same circus, different clowns!

Although I will admit when it comes down to actually being a productive president, I think the last clown did a better job of it!

 

[kaputt]

Quote

"Was it wrong to consider inflation transitory? These price spikes seem like they’re going to be with us for a while," Brennan asked.

"We have to address the fact that we have got to deal with the fact that folks are paying for gas, paying for groceries, and are -- need solutions to it. So let's talk about that," Harris said. "Short-term solution includes what we need to do around the supply chain, right? So, we went to the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Savannah, Georgia, and said, 'Hey, guys, no more five days a week, eight hours a day; 24/7, let's move the products because people need their product – they need what they need.' We're dealing with it in terms of the long term. And that's about what we need to do to pass Build Back Better. It strengthens our economy." 

Absolute gem from our Vice President. Real solid leadership right here. Also, how's the border?

And still 3 more years to go, at least...

 

[brickhistory]

I'm putting this here since this is the main political thread, but it could easily go in the WTF thread or numerous others:

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4995564/senator-cruz-questions-fbi-official-ray-epps-role-january-6

 

Cruz to senior FBI official:  "Did the FBI have any agents or confidential informants in the crowd on January 6th?

Answer:  "Sir, I can't answer that."

 

Why not?

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

ICruz to senior FBI official:  "Did the FBI have any agents or confidential informants in the crowd on January 6th?

Answer:  "Sir, I can't answer that.”

Why not?

Because they did.  It’s the obvious answer.

[nsplayr]

Would it be better for them to reveal sources and methods in an open, televised hearing?

Or is it better if the FBI *didn’t* have any informants or undercover folks reporting on groups that, IDK, literally overwhelmed the police and broke into the seat of government trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power

What tac said above is pretty evident, and I for one am glad…it’s literally the FBI’s job to do that kind of stuff.

IMHO Proud Boys, III Percenters, Neo-Nazis, no-shitter revolutionary commies, domestic environmental terrorists, cartel hombres, anarchists, ISIS wannabes, etc., run back to your holes, fuck off, and check your 6, someone is probably wearing a wire.

Edited January 12, 2022 by nsplayr

[Sim]

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Would it be better for them to reveal sources and methods in an open, televised hearing?

 

[ClearedHot]

15 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Would it be better for them to reveal sources and methods in an open, televised hearing?

Or is it better if the FBI *didn’t* have any informants or undercover folks reporting on groups that, IDK, literally overwhelmed the police and broke into the seat of government trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power

What tac said above is pretty evident, and I for one am glad…it’s literally the FBI’s job to do that kind of stuff.

IMHO Proud Boys, III Percenters, Neo-Nazis, no-shitter revolutionary commies, domestic environmental terrorists, cartel hombres, anarchists, ISIS wannabes, etc., run back to your holes, fuck off, and check your 6, someone is probably wearing a wire.

Meh...you are dodging the issue or maybe you didn't watch what happened?  Of course we want the FBI chasing these idiots back to their caves, but we are still a country of law and some VERY shady shit happened.

"How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?" Cruz asked. Sanborn said in response that she could not discuss "the specifics of sources and methods" of the FBI.  Ok, valid discussing sources and methods is something we have to protect, although I don't think it was a big secret that the FBI had people in the crowd. 

HOWEVER:

Cruz then broadened his question by asking if any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot.

"Sir, I can’t answer that" Seriously?!?!?!  You think this is a source and method?

Cruz then asked if any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6. When he received the same answer, he asked if any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6.

"Sir, I can’t answer that."  Come on brother, you have to know this is wrong.

I am really curious to hear how you think the is a legal method that needs to be protected?

 

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I am really curious to hear how you think the is a legal method that needs to be protected?

Because sources and methods discussions don’t need to happen on unclassified environments. “Broadening the question” is often talking around what is legit classified for good reason. Sen. Cruz, with legit oversight authority, I’m sure can ask those questions in an appropriate setting and get more robust answers. 

The FBI is certainly not above reproach re: shady stuff, but I tend to give the federal LEOs the benefit of the doubt most of the time before getting all conspiratorial 🤷‍♂️

Is the potential charge here that what, the FBI entrapped people and actively led them to storm the building? There’s ample evidence that many of the perpetrators were there of their own accord and having a grand time with it all, at least based on their extremely unwise live social media streams from inside the building haha. The FBI thanks them for their generous cooperation. 🇺🇸

Edited January 12, 2022 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

22 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 

The FBI is certainly not above reproach re: shady stuff, but I tend to give the federal LEOs the benefit of the doubt most of the time before getting all conspiratorial 🤷‍♂️

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. They've overstepped bounds and done "shady stuff" too many times for me to trust them based on the FBI name. 

Additionally...if the FBI had folks in the crowd trying to get the crowd to storm the capitol, who will not face any charges...doesn't that diminish any rhetoric about trying president Trump for encouraging the crowd to storm the capitol? After all...he was the head of the executive branch. If we think people acting on his behalf were in bounds to exhort that sort of action, why would it be out of bounds if the president did it?

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Because sources and methods discussions don’t need to happen on unclassified environments. “Broadening the question” is often talking around what is legit classified for good reason. Sen. Cruz, with legit oversight authority, I’m sure can ask those questions in an appropriate setting and get more robust answers. 

The FBI is certainly not above reproach re: shady stuff, but I tend to give the federal LEOs the benefit of the doubt most of the time before getting all conspiratorial 🤷‍♂️

Is the potential charge here that what, the FBI entrapped people and actively led them to storm the building? There’s ample evidence that many of the perpetrators were there of their own accord and having a grand time with it all, at least based on their extremely unwise live social media streams from inside the building haha. The FBI thanks them for their generous cooperation. 🇺🇸

You are trying to chaff the question.

#1.  Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot?

#2.  Did any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

#3.  Did any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

Those are not methods, those are CRIMES.

 

[nsplayr]

I imagine the answer is no to all of those, but the witness did not want to dance around sources and methods in an open hearing so they decided to decline to answer anything IVO the topic. Sen. Cruz should ask the same questions in a classified session if he thinks it’s that important.

If you think there’s something more nefarious, ok; I do not.

Many people that entered the Capitol on Jan 6th 2021 have already pleaded guilty of crimes, and I at least have a pretty clear memory of who was encouraging that angry mob to head down to the Capitol and take action in the first place.

[VMFA187]

@nsplayr, no these questions should be asked where the public can bear witness. If there are sources that were involved then perhaps they should be revealed. There are no "methods" that could be divulged from answering those questions. 

No? You don't think that everything that happens is a power play by someone? I'm sorry to tell you, but you are incredibly naive. 

 

[Lawman]

[mention=5271]nsplayr[/mention], no these questions should be asked where the public can bear witness. If there are sources that were involved then perhaps they should be revealed. There are no "methods" that could be divulged from answering those questions. 
No? You don't think that everything that happens is a power play by someone? I'm sorry to tell you, but you are incredibly naive. 
 

I’m sure roles reversed with a Democratic Senator demanding to know if any federal agency elements were in place during a riot as a BLM member would be totally legit to the same people complaining about Cruz and others questions.

If FBI agents had been say active members in encouraging the CHAZ riots it would of course be a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Sometime this fall in a conference room 

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You are trying to chaff the question.

#1.  Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot?

#2.  Did any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

#3.  Did any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

Those are not methods, those are CRIMES.

 

Uggghh. Are we really suggesting that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI "encouragement"?  A few years ago, that narrative would be laughable to anyone with a brain.  Still is.  Total joke and a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures who were more than enough to convince a bunch of ignorant dipshits to storm the Capitol.  For those who want to believe this nonsense, ask yourselves: What would be the benefit to the FBI of leading an angry mob to Nancy Pelosi's office?

[dream big]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

I’m sure roles reversed with a Democratic Senator demanding to know if any federal agency elements were in place during a riot as a BLM member would be totally legit to the same people complaining about Cruz and others questions.

If FBI agents had been say active members in encouraging the CHAZ riots it would of course be a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can’t talk about BLM in reference to the tragic day of Jan 6 that eclipsed Pearl Harbor and 9/11! How dare you bring up Whataboutism? We can’t afford to have our hypocrisy come to light.  Those poor businesses in towns like Minnesota (most of them non-wealthy black owners) are the price of decades of systemic racism and the system rigged against minorities of the most free nation on Earth. 
 

Last time I checked, everyone in the Capital still has a job.  Same can’t be said for the thousands of poor souls without a livelihood because of the Marxist BLM thugs. 

[FourFans]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:12 PM, Prozac said:

Uggghh. Are we really suggesting that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI "encouragement"?  A few years ago, that narrative would be laughable to anyone with a brain.  Still is.  Total joke and a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures who were more than enough to convince a bunch of ignorant dipshits to storm the Capitol.  For those who want to believe this nonsense, ask yourselves: What would be the benefit to the FBI of leading an angry mob to Nancy Pelosi's office?

So we can't discuss "that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI 'encouragement'" but instead we should readily believe that the the Jan 6 violence was a result of Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figure's  'encouragement'?  

I'm literally no neither side of this argument, but what you just said doesn't pass any kind of logic test.

That's literally a dressed up version of "Don't listen to them because they're wrong.  Listen to me because I'm right!"   

Can I buy some facts please?  People here are attempting to follow facts.  Such as the fact that a man was recorded actively encouraging a mob...who then decried him as a fed btw...to go into the capitol building.  The FBI put him on the watchlist...then promptly remove him from their watch list entirely, and then refuse to acknowledge who he is.  Even if he is/was an FBI plant, what he was inciting the croud to do is illegal...and he was recorded...with his knowledge...inso doing.  Yet no FBI pursuit.  That doesn't sound suspicious to you?  At all? 

More importantly, if you can't see the political benefit of encouraging a political opponent's base to riot and go into (can we call it invading?) government offices, I beg you to step back and see the forest for the trees.  The benefits are incalculable.  Why do you think they're bring it up again a year later?  One person died, and then the capitol of our republic, by the people for the people, was shut off from the people through military means.  Meanwhile, where is the outcry over the CHAZ?  Where are the news stories commemorating how the federal, state, and local governments are helping the hundreds of citizens killed, injured, displaced, or otherwise negatively impacted by the events all across the west coast?  Do you even know the death toll from the CHAZ?

I'll spell it out: Getting your enemies to attack you and make you look like the victim when you are in power gives you more power.  That's how bullies and thugs operate.  They bully who they don't like until that person attacks them back, the bully times it so the response occurs in front of the principle or the police, so the bully looks like the victim.  This is nothing new, and politicians are REALLY good at it.

If you cannot objectively see how both sides of the political spectrum, especially the extremists in power seats right now, are crafting the narrative to sway your opinion, well, I politely ask you to stop watching CNN and/or Fox News for a minute and read a little more history about how countries collapse.  We're showing all the symptoms friend.  It's not good...and the current leaders are making it much, much worse.

Edited January 15, 2022 by FourFans130

[Prozac]

10 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

So we can't have a suggest "that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI 'encouragement'" but instead we should believe that the the Jan 6 violence was a result of Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures'  'encouragement'?  

I'm literally no neither side of this argument, but what you just said doesn't pass any kind of logic test.

More importantly, if you can't see the political benefit of encouraging your political opponent's base to riot and go into (can we call it invading?) government offices, I beg you to step back and see the forest for the trees.  The benefits are incalculable.  Why do you think they're bring it up again a year later?  One person died, and the capital of our republic, by the people for the people, was shut off from the people through military means.  Meanwhile, where is the outcry over the CHAZ?  Where are the news stories commemorating how the federal, state, and local governments are helping the hundreds of citizens injured, displaced, or otherwise negatively impacted by the events all across the west coast?

If you cannot objectively see how both sides of the political spectrum, especially the extremists, are crafting the narrative to sway your opinion, well, I politely ask you to stop watching CNN and/or Fox News for a minute and read a little more history about how countries collapse.  We're showing all the symptoms friend.  It's not good...and the current leaders are making it much, much worse.

Except that all of the people I mentioned were literally encouraging their followers to riot. If I were China, I couldn’t think of a better narrative than to have half of the American public lose all faith in their institutions, to have half the public believe their president is illegitimate, and to have half the public believe that the chief American epidemiologist is responsible for Covid and not lax Chinese practices. We are well and truly fucked. 

[FourFans]

Just now, Prozac said:

Except that all of the people I mentioned were literally encouraging their followers to riot. If I were China, I couldn’t think of a better narrative than to have half of the American public lose all faith in their institutions, to have half the public believe their president is illegitimate, and to have half the public believe that the chief American epidemiologist is responsible for Covid and not lax Chinese practices. We are well and truly fucked. 

Do you think the current administration is fighting against, or helping along that Chinese agenda?

[Prozac]

1 minute ago, FourFans130 said:

Do you think the current administration is fighting against, or helping along that Chinese agenda?

I honestly don’t know. A lot of/most diplomacy happens behind the scenes. I think Biden is trying to stay out of the culture war cesspool publicly. American diplomacy and soft power are much bigger than any one president. I have faith that the system is working as designed.