• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bannon found guilty

Rawley said:
14,000th time, no representation of the minority. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this?
Click to expand...
There is such representation on the committee by the Party in the minority.

There could have been an additional 5 if McCarthy had not ignorantly boycotted his opportunity to hand select 5 additional Republicans to sit on the committee.

But despite that the committee still had minority party representation.

Why you can't fit that reality into your head is anyones guess?

Rawley said:
14001st time, for the first time in the history of Congress - 230 years.
Click to expand...
Citation of that if you would please.
Regardless, that would be irrelevant, totally irrelevant.
There is always a first time for everything, not like it was illegal or immoral for the seated committee to move ahead when McCarthy ignorantly decided to yank his team in some ignorant pique of petulance.
He made a huge mistake. Even clueless Trump had a moment of clarity on that and stressed what a mistake it was.
Rawley said:
???? I posted her"reasoning.
Click to expand...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reasoning for the committee as seated moving forward was solid and sane and rational.
McCarthy's reasoning for his boycott over those two THE BIG LIE promoting A-Holes not being allowed to sit on the committee is all on him. He eschewed having 5 additional Republicans sit on that committee because he wanted to have a partisan hissy fit over two that were rejected, for good reason!
Rawley said:
So you won't have a problem why DEms are excluded next year, right?
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Cause I know it will be for petty revenge reasons, as you have already telegraphed, so succinctly, will be the Republicans MO for everything come 2023.

When the Republicans do it pettily and vengefully, and not for the sane and rational reasoning Speaker Nancy Pelosi rightfully applied in rejecting Rep. Jordan and Rep. Banks, it will be blatantly obvious to Americans who pay attention to what is going on.
 
Rawley said:
14,000th time, no representation of the minority. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this?
Click to expand...
I understand it just fine, and you seem to not miss that McCarthy made that decision for the party. I'm not sure why you can't process that simple fact; and the one that there is minority representation in the form of Cheney and Kizinger. As for the reasons Pelosi did not want Banks and Jordan on the committee, that was made public when it happened and according to her were because both Banks and Jordan's role in not certifying the election. However, the other three could have served on the committee, so the choice was McCarthy's to withdraw all of them.

Rawley said:
14001st time, for the first time in the history of Congress - 230 years.

???? I posted her"reasoning.
Click to expand...
It's also important to remember the legislation which created the committee allowed for this kind of process since the selection of the committee was to be conducted after the consultation of the minority leader. That outlines a cooperative process that does not mandate the choices of the minority leader to go unquestioned or not at the Speaker's discretion. McCarthy would have been better served making a case for Banks and Jordan's inclusion than just pulling them all out.

H.Res.503 said:
SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.


(a) Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.
Click to expand...

Rawley said:
So you won't have a problem why DEms are excluded next year, right?
Click to expand...
I would if the GOP excluded them outright, but not at all if the Democratic leader pulls the same stunt McCarthy did. I would much rather have a seat at the table than not, because regardless who is there, they can still ask questions of those testifying. Sitting on the sidelines pouting achieves nothing.
 
Last edited:
LouC said:
There is such representation on the committee by the Party in the minority.

There could have been an additional 5 if McCarthy had not ignorantly boycotted his opportunity to hand select 5 additional Republicans to sit on the committee.

But despite that the committee still had minority party representation.

Why you can't fit that reality into your head is anyones guess?


Citation of that if you would please.
Regardless, that would be irrelevant, totally irrelevant.
There is always a first time for everything, not like it was illegal or immoral for the seated committee to move ahead when McCarthy ignorantly decided to yank his team in some ignorant pique of petulance.
He made a huge mistake. Even clueless Trump had a moment of clarity on that and stressed what a mistake it was.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reasoning for the committee as seated moving forward was solid and sane and rational.
McCarthy's reasoning for his boycott over those two THE BIG LIE promoting A-Holes not being allowed to sit on the committee is all on him. He eschewed having 5 additional Republicans sit on that committee because he wanted to have a partisan hissy fit over two that were rejected, for good reason!

Not at all.

Cause I know it will be for petty revenge reasons, as you have already telegraphed, so succinctly, will be the Republicans MO for everything come 2023.

When the Republicans do it pettily and vengefully, and not for the sane and rational reasoning Speaker Nancy Pelosi rightfully applied in rejecting Rep. Jordan and Rep. Banks, it will be blatantly obvious to Americans who pay attention to what is going on.
Click to expand...
I think this horse is dead. Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality of Nancy's unprecedented action will coming back to bite your party in the ass very soon.
 
Rawley said:
I think this horse is dead. Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality of Nancy's unprecedented action will coming back to bite your party in the ass very soon.
Click to expand...
Telegraphed it once more.

That you cannot understand the rational and sane reasoning behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "unprecedented" but entirely reasonable decision to reject Rep. Jordan and Rep. Bank's doesn't surprise me.

Not in the least.

That you are all in for irrational, unreasoned, petty revenge actions by the Republicans when they next take control of either or both houses of congress is no surprise either.

It fits right in with the spittle spewing frothing rhetoric coming from Republican members of Congress.

All of this could have been avoided had McCarthy played by the rules instead of choosing to sit this one out.
 
Rawley said:
I think this horse is dead. Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality of Nancy's unprecedented action will coming back to bite your party in the ass very soon.
Click to expand...

Which pathetic hack are you going get hyped about?
 
My only criticism of your excellent post, my friend, is this passage
LouC said:
Cause I know it will be for petty revenge reasons, as you have already telegraphed, so succinctly, will be the Republicans MO for everything come 2023.

When the Republicans do it pettily and vengefully, and not for the sane and rational reasoning Speaker Nancy Pelosi rightfully applied in rejecting Rep. Jordan and Rep. Banks, it will be blatantly obvious to Americans who pay attention to what is going on.
Click to expand...
"Petty and vengeful" has been the Republican approach since at least the advent of Newt Gingrich. It's so repetitious, it's a given. The list of examples is legion - Whitewater, Benghazi, numerous government shutdowns - and both Donald Trump's rise and January 6 itself are the result of that approach.

Had the party acted in a rational and responsible manner, Donald Trump would never have become the nominee, much less gained office and influence. But, because they have operated under "petty grievance politics" for so long, he became inevitable. It has been 40 years since the party put forth any program to actually address problems facing the nation. I've frequently challenged the audience to provide contra-examples, and never been presented any. That is one thing I will actually give Ronald Reagan credit for - he presented programs (often wrongheaded and flawed) with a basis in at least a modicum of rationality, such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. (Most of his other programs were abject failures and poorly structured.)

It's Why the GOP Is Ideologically Lost (NY Mag): "the ideological incoherence of the contemporary GOP is unusually severe." There is no "there" there, and hasn't been for decades. To the extent they have accomplished anything, it is the degradation of the nation, its laws, its society, and even its Constitution. It is, in fact, the fetish of "petty and vengeful" that has brought us to this pass. We cannot expect better in the future until that particular fever has broken, and there are no signs of that.
 
NWRatCon said:
My only criticism of your excellent post, my friend, is this passage

"Petty and vengeful" has been the Republican approach since at least the advent of Newt Gingrich. It's so repetitious, it's a given. The list of examples is legion - Whitewater, Benghazi, numerous government shutdowns - and both Donald Trump's rise and January 6 itself are the result of that approach.

Had the party acted in a rational and responsible manner, Donald Trump would never have become the nominee, much less gained office and influence. But, because they have operated under "petty grievance politics" for so long, he became inevitable. It has been 40 years since the party put forth any program to actually address problems facing the nation. I've frequently challenged the audience to provide contra-examples, and never been presented any. That is one thing I will actually give Ronald Reagan credit for - he presented programs (often wrongheaded and flawed) with a basis in at least a modicum of rationality, such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. (Most of his other programs were abject failures and poorly structured.)

It's Why the GOP Is Ideologically Lost (NY Mag): "the ideological incoherence of the contemporary GOP is unusually severe." There is no "there" there, and hasn't been for decades. To the extent they have accomplished anything, it is the degradation of the nation, its laws, its society, and even its Constitution. It is, in fact, the fetish of "petty and vengeful" that has brought us to this pass. We cannot expect better in the future until that particular fever has broken, and there are no signs of that.
Click to expand...
(y)(y)(y)(y)(y)
 
Rawley said:
I think this horse is dead. Whether you want to accept it or not, the reality of Nancy's unprecedented action will coming back to bite your party in the ass very soon.
Click to expand...
Well the next time a Democrat tries to illegally and unconstitutionally keep themselves in power, then have at it.
 
BlueTex said:
LOL.. No there isn't...
Click to expand...
(6) (A) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.

There is no ranking minority member. To address your nonsense ahead of time, no Lizzie is not the ranking minority member as she was not appointed by the minority.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I understand it just fine, and you seem to not miss that McCarthy made that decision for the party. I'm not sure why you can't process that simple fact; and the one that there is minority representation in the form of Cheney and Kizinger. As for the reasons Pelosi did not want Banks and Jordan on the committee, that was made public when it happened and according to her were because both Banks and Jordan's role in not certifying the election. However, the other three could have served on the committee, so the choice was McCarthy's to withdraw all of them.


It's also important to remember the legislation which created the committee allowed for this kind of process since the selection of the committee was to be conducted after the consultation of the minority leader. That outlines a cooperative process that does not mandate the choices of the minority leader to go unquestioned or not at the Speaker's discretion. McCarthy would have been better served making a case for Banks and Jordan's inclusion than just pulling them all out.




I would if the GOP excluded them outright, but not at all if the Democratic leader pulls the same stunt McCarthy did. I would much rather have a seat at the table than not, because regardless who is there, they can still ask questions of those testifying. Sitting on the sidelines pouting achieves nothing.
Click to expand...

If you understood it, you would not be mouthing Nancy's lame talking points about McCarthy,

In case you don't understand it, here's a simple sports analogy. For the 2022 Championship, the Celtics got to change the rules that had been in place since the advent of the game and decided Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green we not allowed to play. As the coach of the Warriors, would you play that game? Would you watch the game if if the Celtics got the choose their own players that used to be Warriors?

The Jan 6th committee truly is that ridiculous.
 
Rawley said:
If you understood it, you would not be mouthing Nancy's lame talking points about McCarthy,
Click to expand...
The only time I've mentioned Pelosi was in regards to her decision about Banks and Jordan. McCarthy's decision was his own because he could have floated two new members and it would have been an equal amount of representation.

Rawley said:
In case you don't understand it, here's a simple sports analogy. For the 2022 Championship, the Celtics got to change the rules that had been in place since the advent of the game and decided Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green we not allowed to play. As the coach of the Warriors, would you play that game? Would you watch the game if if the Celtics got the choose their own players that used to be Warriors?

The Jan 6th committee truly is that ridiculous.
Click to expand...
That's a bad analogy. No rules were changed and I cited from the legislation itself what the rules for appointing people to the committee were outlined. That this hasn't happened before isn't a rule; the rules are defined in the legislation which forms the committee. You comparison doesn't work unless you're equivocating the roles of Banks and Jordan as political equivalents of those team members, which is really suspect. If I were McCarthy, I would have selected different members to ensure the committee was bipartisan rather than sitting it out and having no control over the questions asked, because at the end of the day, the hearings were going to go on and simply sitting it out is a poor reactionary position to be in.
 
Rawley said:
(6) (A) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.

There is no ranking minority member. To address your nonsense ahead of time, no Lizzie is not the ranking minority member as she was not appointed by the minority.
Click to expand...
Does violating house rules invalidate the legality of congressional subpoena?
 
BlueTex said:
Does violating house rules invalidate the legality of congressional subpoena?
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, his assertion on is flat wrong (I.e. bull). Cheney is, by Congressional definition and common understanding, the ranking member, period. Your correspondent has a very bad habit of "arguing from false premises." For example, making up definitions unrelated to reality and insisting that you accept them.
 
pocket aces said:
Well the next time a Democrat tries to illegally and unconstitutionally keep themselves in power, then have at it.
Click to expand...
;)(y)

With the aiding and abetting of Democrat members of Congress, absolutely, HAVE AT IT!
 
US&THEM said:
When he was fighting for the National Guard, right? Right? Keep defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...
Quote where I said anything you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom