Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

You couldn't possibly understand. Your eyes are closed. You can't read. You only listen to the voices in your head.

You're dishonest and disingenuous in your interactions. You pretend that it's everyone's fault but your own that discussions break down.

Who needs it.

No evidence.  Just excuses.

[TechTalk]

How would you know what the evidence is or what it refers to when you open your mouth and make claims long before you open your eyes and ears to what has already been presented? Then you have the gall to ask for more! You haven't even attempted to glance at what you're complaining about!

JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH... THIS GUY!

[Alan Klein]

How would you know what the evidence is or what it refers to when you open your mouth and make claims long before you open your eyes and ears to what has already been presented? Then you have the gall to ask for more! You haven't even attempted to glance at what you're complaining about!

JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH... THIS GUY!

If it's already there and I missed it, then I'd appreciate it if you could point it out to me.  Copy and paste would work. 

[TechTalk]

DON'T ask me why I'm doing this, but this ONE time, I'm going to hold your hand and walk you across the street... but from now on you're on your own. Just LOOK both ways before you cross in the future.

I wrote...

With every new January 6th Committee hearing, new evidence is revealed and mounting. An NPR article following last week's hearing summarized what had been learned, the main headings of which were...

1. For Trump, the crowd was armed, dangerous – and welcome.
2. A president with a flash temper and desperate to hold onto power.
3. No one was too big or too small for Trump's pressure campaign.
4. The potential for criminal prosecution may be growing.
5. The credibility of the witnesses is hard to dismiss.

Today's hearing provided evidence that exposed more of the unhinged activities inside the Trump White House.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/unhinged-west-wing-meeting-jan-6

In its seventh public hearing, the House select committee detailed an explosive meeting at the White House on Dec. 18, 2020, in which outside advisers to then-President Donald Trump and White House officials clashed over election fraud conspiracy theories and plots to keep Trump in power.

The committee meticulously reconstructed the meeting, playing clips of sworn testimony from various participants, including White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who met with the committee behind closed doors on Friday.

The chaotic White House meeting took place four days after electors met across the country and made Joe Biden the president-elect, and lasted over six hours, beginning in the Oval Office and ending in Trump's private residence...

Now... Let's take this slowly...

I said "With every new January 6th Committee hearing, new evidence is revealed and mounting." I didn't say ANYTHING about Trump now did I? The evidence I'm referring to is broader than that. I'm referring to all of the evidence that has come out regarding MANY different people engaged in many different activities leading up to January 6th. I linked to an article that goes into detail and I just listed the MAIN HEADINGS exactly the way they appear in the article including the numbers.

BUT... you go and make the FALSE assertion "You've made the claim there's evidence of Trump criminal activity." when I said no such goddamn thing. Why did you say that? Because you clearly did NOT read what I wrote and did not read what I was referencing to have any context to go on. You just made it up... and then demand that I provide evidence for YOUR FALSE CLAIM.

You with me so far?... I don't want to lose you...

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm asking for explanations of how parliaments are more democratic than the federal republic system we have?  ...

Who said they were?

[TechTalk]

...Now you should know that these hearings are about much more than Trump. They're about a whole roster of people some good, some bad, and some just plain nuts spinning around in Trump's orbit. Some inside the White House and many outside of the White House. You should know this as a concerned citizen, but you're not concerned... so you don't know. You've said with regard to the hearings you've watched "very little".

That still doesn't give you any right to make up words, shove them into my mouth, and then demand that I produce evidence to support them. Can you see where that might upset someone just a little and maybe make them want to disengage from discussing anything with you? Especially when it is habitual and combined with other equally frustrating habits...

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm asking for explanations of how parliaments are more democratic than the federal republic system we have?  There were many that implied American is not democratic.  Well, it isn't.  But neither is PM system.  That's the only point I was making in light of what I learned today about what's going on over there with Boris and the 8 nominees.

While we're mentioning change in governments, now here's how a mob takes over a government, not the way American mobs acted on Jan 6th.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62132271

As I said, in a parliamentary system there is no direct election of the Prime Minister. He is one among equals. In the US system, the President has special standing that is different from that of Congress or the Senate and he is voted for directly (sort of, ignoring the electoral college nonsense).

I'm not sure what you mean by one system being "more democratic" than another. Not sure what the criteria are for making the judgement. So I am going to ignore that line of thought.

[TechTalk]

...I also wrote in the post that set off your demands for evidence of Trump's criminal activity...

"Today's hearing provided evidence that exposed more of the unhinged activities inside the Trump White House."

Evidence... that exposed more of the unhinged activities. I said unhinged activities, not criminal. I said inside the Trump White House, not Trump.

Read what people actually write. STOP pretending that people have said things, just because that's what you want to argue about. It's dishonest, disingenuous, and causes a hell of a lot of needless friction.

[TechTalk]

And here are the two articles AGAIN which I linked in my post and about which my comment "With every new January 6th Committee hearing, new evidence is revealed and mounting" were referring...

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/05/1109461884/5-things-weve-learned-so-far-from-the-jan-6-committee-hearings

The Jan. 6 panel announces its next hearing. Here's what we know from them so far

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111037932/unhinged-west-wing-meeting-jan-6

Inside the 'unhinged' West Wing meeting on Dec. 18

Read them. Don't read them. Read what I actually wrote or not. It's up to you. But, don't put words in my mouth and then demand that I produce evidence for them. I won't put up with it any longer.

[Peter McLennan]

Why should I look for the evidence you claim exists.  Just tell me what it is.  You're the one making the accusation.

Actually, it's more than me "making the accusation"  I'm just an innocent bystander from a neighbouring country, but I see considerable global interest in these proceedings, despite your protestations that people have moved on.  They have not.  And your wishing will not make it so.

Why, Oh why would an American of ANY political persuasion choose to absent themselves from what appears to be the most important event in American politics in 230-odd years?

Considering your professed expertise in everything from geopolitics to climatology, why would you choose to remain ignorant?

[Manoli]

You could try reading what I actually said and try reading the context contained in the articles that my statement referenced... but you won't.

• You don't read the articles that you reference and link in your own posts
• You don't read the articles which others post and link before you comment on them
• You don't read what people have written in their posts before pretending they've made statements that they haven''t made

750 plus pages are proof enough that Alan Klein, in all probability, is simply incapable of reading.
It’s not that he won’t, he can’t.

[Manoli]

I'm asking a simple question. What is the evidence that Trump committed a crime?

The evidence, so far, resides in the witness statements and their testimony.

[Alan Klein]

...Now you should know that these hearings are about much more than Trump. They're about a whole roster of people some good, some bad, and some just plain nuts spinning around in Trump's orbit. Some inside the White House and many outside of the White House. You should know this as a concerned citizen, but you're not concerned... so you don't know. You've said with regard to the hearings you've watched "very little".

That still doesn't give you any right to make up words, shove them into my mouth, and then demand that I produce evidence to support them. Can you see where that might upset someone just a little and maybe make them want to disengage from discussing anything with you? Especially when it is habitual and combined with other equally frustrating habits...

I appreciate your post.  The media people mainly talk about Trump's guilt.  Trump this.  Trump that.  So  that's why I'm focused on him. Everyone else are bit players in this affair.  So if I got it right now, there's no proof yet that Trump broke the law.  A lot of involvement but not yet rising to the level of guilt.  But there might be evidence that others did break the law. Congress is still working on finding evidence about Trump although I believe I heard that some members have already said they believe there's enough for a recommendation to prosecute him. Meanwhile the AJ is still holding back doing his own investigation.  Am I getting it right?  Thanks for the clarification.

[Alan Klein]

As I said, in a parliamentary system there is no direct election of the Prime Minister. He is one among equals. In the US system, the President has special standing that is different from that of Congress or the Senate and he is voted for directly (sort of, ignoring the electoral college nonsense).

I'm not sure what you mean by one system being "more democratic" than another. Not sure what the criteria are for making the judgement. So I am going to ignore that line of thought.

Thanks for the clarification Robert.  The reason I brought up the "democratic" process because of what's going on in England now and because of the many negative comments from non-Americans previously about how the US electoral system is so undemocratic. 

So now I discover just how undemocratic the parliamentary system is, even worse. It seems that now the public has no vote in selecting their next Prime Minister.  In America, each party has a convention and the public votes on who the candidates are before a general election.  Currently, in England, 8 nominees were selected by politicians, not the public.  Politicians will select the PM from the 8, while in America voters select the president through the electoral system, certainly more democratic than what will happen in England. 

So England has a syetem where their next PM is not selected by the public.  They have nothing to say about it.That seems very undemocratic.   

[Alan Klein]

Actually, it's more than me "making the accusation"  I'm just an innocent bystander from a neighbouring country, but I see considerable global interest in these proceedings, despite your protestations that people have moved on.  They have not.  And your wishing will not make it so.

Why, Oh why would an American of ANY political persuasion choose to absent themselves from what appears to be the most important event in American politics in 230-odd years?

Considering your professed expertise in everything from geopolitics to climatology, why would you choose to remain ignorant?

TechTalk says theirs no proof Trump did anything criminal. He used the word "unhinged" referring to Trump's behavior, not "criminal".  That's my position although it's not clear to me what unhinged means. Certainly, there are no laws against acting unhinged.  There are laws against incitement to riot, incitement to trespass, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc.  But there's no proof Trump did these things. Encouraging your supporters to come to Washington to march and stamp their feet and make a lot of noise to support Trump's belief the election was stolen is not illegal.  It is political free speech.  Now if Trump told them to break into the capital building and jump on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's desk, then that could be illegal.

The Democrats are still working on looking for the proof, the "smoking gun". So it seems you have it wrong. I don't waste my time watching much of the hearings because the Democrats are running it.  They are the judge, jury, and prosecutor, not exactly a fair inquiry. They've been working 1 1/2 years on this and still haven't found the "smoking gun".  I'd say it's a political show trial.

But that won't stop the Democrats. I suspect when the inquiry is done, they will send their recommendations to prosecute Trump to the US Attorney General who is a Democrat political appointee, approved to his position by the Democrats in Congress, who works for Democrat President Biden.  The Democrats in Congress hope he indicts Trump.  We'll see then if there's no real evidence whether he'll smear his reputation and indict for political reasons and pressure from Biden.  After all, Democrats need something besides abortion to help them in the midterm elections in November becasue Biden's approval rating is under 40%.

[Alan Klein]

750 plus pages are proof enough that Alan Klein, in all probability, is simply incapable of reading.
It’s not that he won’t, he can’t.

The evidence, so far, resides in the witness statements and their testimony.

TechTalk agrees with me there's no evidence yet of guilt just that Trump acted "unhinged" which is not illegal.  Apparently, you have it wrong. 

[TechTalk]

I appreciate your post.  The media people mainly talk about Trump's guilt.  Trump this.  Trump that.  So  that's why I'm focused on him. Everyone else are bit players in this affair.  So if I got it right now, there's no proof yet that Trump broke the law.  A lot of involvement but not yet rising to the level of guilt.  But there might be evidence that others did break the law. Congress is still working on finding evidence about Trump although I believe I heard that some members have already said they believe there's enough for a recommendation to prosecute him. Meanwhile the AJ is still holding back doing his own investigation.  Am I getting it right?  Thanks for the clarification.

"Am I getting it right?"... No you're not getting it right. You have way too little information and make way too many assumptions to be getting it right.

[Robert Roaldi]

...

So now I discover just how undemocratic the parliamentary system is, even worse. It seems that now the public has no vote in selecting their next Prime Minister.

...

That's right, they have no direct vote in electing the PM. The PM is a fundamentally different position than that of a President. This is the third time I state this. Will you twist its meaning again? Why do you insist on comparing apples to oranges in a non-existent competition.

You stick to your "messaging" more stubbornly than most politicians running for office. You should run for office.

[TechTalk]

TechTalk says theirs no proof Trump did anything criminal.

I DID NOT SAT THAT! I simply didn't talk about Trump specifically. I only wrote about the committee hearings generally.

I didn't say anything about Trump... period. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!

[TechTalk]

TechTalk agrees with me there's no evidence yet of guilt just that Trump acted "unhinged" which is not illegal.  Apparently, you have it wrong.

JUST STOP QUOTING ME. Stop!!