Who Is John Galt?

[stollcpa]

Yes I do. But that doesn’t mean that happened here.

Fair enough.

 

[DANC]

I look at Trump objectively. You do not. Objective focus would require you to clearly see how irresponsible Trump was leading up to and on 1/6. You would have shat your pants if it was BLM and a Democrat.

The democrats are completely culpable, in my opinion, for their phrasing and messaging lending tacit support for BLM riots to get votes in 2020. I think both are awful. Why don’t you?

Are you saying I don't think 1/6 was awful.

You're wrong. It was awful. But in light of how law enforcement handled the summer violence, what would you expect would happen?

However,you weren't living on this forum last summer when the BLM violence was going on.

That's why you're being hypocritical.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I’d support a bipartisan, 50/50, investigation and report about the FBI, it’s tactics, and whether political ideology is coloring how agents or directors act. Like with election logistics, it seems important to reestablish the legitimacy of an important institution.

It’s just wild to me, though, that we have so few people and politicians on both sides of the aisle willing to fiercely defend the legitimacy of our institutions. This is certainly a new phenomenon, started during Watergate sure, but it’s now both dominant political parties collectively attacking every important institution we have.

Maybe that’s wrong though: maybe these message boards and my time on them color my view as to how prevalent this is (damn human biases!).

It’s a helluva time / era to be objective and of critical thought.

 

[Crayfish57]

Bless your heart.

Want to meet up sometime? Bless your heart a keybourd warrior I just laugh at you

 

[dbmhoosier]

It’s laughable to me that Trumpers (which is what you’ve all become) think that the FBI is this bastion of progressivism and liberalism. In reality, the average FBI agent is far more likely to be conservative and GOP-leaning.

Lol. Don't forget Ruby Ridge and Waco. The FBI literally has a license to kill.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Let’s think about this a little deeper. Note I’m a conservative otherwise I’d say “let’s unpack this” and then kick my own ass.

If the FBI answered who “wasn’t” an FBI informant, and then they supplied an answer of “I cannot comment” when asked about someone else, doesn’t that imply Yes? Do you really want informants outed?

He appears to be an instigator, not an informant. That seems relevant to the defense of those still in jail with no bond and no court date.

 

[DANC]

You have major reading comprehension issues. This entire thread’s premise is that the FBI will not answer questions about the mythical provocateur Ray Epps therefore the FBI is involved. There is no evidence he’s an FBI informant. There’s no evidence he’s an agent but that is the conclusion.

Thus, FBI is involved because now everything bad Trump supporters do is FBI-started. This isn’t hard logic. Why is it for you?

I just quoted what you wrote. Which was wrong.

Don't try to parse it out after the fact.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

You have major reading comprehension issues. This entire thread’s premise is that the FBI will not answer questions about the mythical provocateur Ray Epps therefore the FBI is involved. There is no evidence he’s an FBI informant. There’s no evidence he’s an agent but that is the conclusion.

Thus, FBI is involved because now everything bad Trump supporters do is FBI-started. This isn’t hard logic. Why is it for you?

If you were a GOP politician, you would have been primaried by now.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

He appears to be an instigator, not an informant.

Annnnndddddd what does that mean vis-à-vis FBI?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I just quoted what you wrote. Which was wrong.

Don't try to parse it out after the fact.

Oh Dan. Bless your heart.

 

[DANC]

Yes I do. But that doesn’t mean that happened here.

It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It makes is more likely it did.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Want to meet up sometime? Bless your heart a keybourd warrior I just laugh at you

Yes, I want to meet up with some anonymous, obviously unstable asshole from an internet message board.

 

[DANC]

Oh Dan. Bless your heart.

Hard to refute what you wrote, huh?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think you’re very much overthinking this right now. You don’t get to rage when the Democrats fully overblow 1/6 in political theater such as congressional hearings and then get upset at the FBI when the GOP side asks politically charged questions - that are meant to be sound bytes - that the asker knows they can’t answer. Others would fall for this - you’re way too smart to not see the similarities.

Of course it is all theater, which is why I don't believe the FBI. I don't believe any of them. The idea that the government is not a self interested party that will lie to you in order to meet their ends is pretty much done. Everything that comes out of Washington, D.C. is a farce. What happened on 1/6 was a riot. It was a riot that was the exclamation point on a year of rioting. Riots that were encouraged by the respective rhetoric on each side.

To me it is not too crazy to believe the FBI had people there that day throwing gas on the fire. They did not cause the riots. They were not responsible for the riots. However, if they had people embedded who were encouraging some of the stuff that happened, we should know. And I am not willing to just accept the theater that went on yesterday as the definitive answer. These things are almost always a joke because it is politicians grandstanding and the people being questioned never answer anything.

Our government, whether led by the left or right, has done nothing to engender any feelings of trust within me over the past decade. That is particularly true of the named people in D.C. There are over 500 congressional representatives. Most of us know our representative and then a handful of others. I would suggest that the people whose names you know are the problem in Washington along with the political appointees who run the various entities of the government. If any of them are talking, they are lying. Which is why I don't think the Epps narrative is clear cut conspiracy craziness. He may not be everything Cruz was saying in his questioning but I would be willing to bet that he has connections to federal law enforcement in some capacity.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Are you saying I don't think 1/6 was awful.

You're wrong. It was awful. But in light of how law enforcement handled the summer violence, what would you expect would happen?

However,you weren't living on this forum last summer when the BLM violence was going on.

That's why you're being hypocritical.

I have no idea what you mean by any of these “points.” I am glad you think 1/6 was awful. Do you ascribe any guilt (moral or criminal) to Trump?

 

[Crayfish57]

Yes, I want to meet up with some anonymous, obviously unstable asshole from an internet message board.

Looking in a mirror again Bulk? Any time any place

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Also, don't forget Pelosi and Bowser who refused the thousands of National Guardsmen that Trump told them were needed. Why?

Jesus, for the 100th time, Pelosi was in charge of as much security that day as McConnell was. Zero.

Stop it.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Lol. Don't forget Ruby Ridge and Waco. The FBI literally has a license to kill.

Need we bring up the secrecy around the JFK files (60+ years later) or Saudi involvement in 911?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Of course it is all theater, which is why I don't believe the FBI. I don't believe any of them. The idea that the government is not a self interested party that will lie to you in order to meet their ends is pretty much done. Everything that comes out of Washington, D.C. is a farce. What happened on 1/6 was a riot. It was a riot that was the exclamation point on a year of rioting. Riots that were encouraged by the respective rhetoric on each side.

To me it is not too crazy to believe the FBI had people there that day throwing gas on the fire. They did not cause the riots. They were not responsible for the riots. However, if they had people embedded who were encouraging some of the stuff that happened, we should know. And I am not willing to just accept the theater that went on yesterday as the definitive answer. These things are almost always a joke because it is politicians grandstanding and the people being questioned never answer anything.

Our government, whether led by the left or right, has done nothing to engender any feelings of trust within me over the past decade. That is particularly true of the named people in D.C. There are over 500 congressional representatives. Most of us know our representative and then a handful of others. I would suggest that the people whose names you know are the problem in Washington along with the political appointees who run the various entities of the government. If any of them are talking, they are lying. Which is why I don't think the Epps narrative is clear cut conspiracy craziness. He may not be everything Cruz was saying in his questioning but I would be willing to bet that he has connections to federal law enforcement in some capacity.

I always ask “what’s the endgame or objective” before I give these theories any merit or deep consideration. So I ask you, what’s the endgame or objective for FBI agents or another agency to foment violence at this rally turned riot?

Because I can tell you that the LEOs I know at fed level would never follow an order to foment violence at a political rally to make one side look bad. It’s also an illegal order.

We can badmouth bureaucrats all we want - and we’re probably right - but at the end of the day the boots on the ground have to act and I’d like to think they won’t act on illegal orders.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Looking in a mirror again Bulk? Any time any place

🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[DANC]

I’d support a bipartisan, 50/50, investigation and report about the FBI, it’s tactics, and whether political ideology is coloring how agents or directors act. Like with election logistics, it seems important to reestablish the legitimacy of an important institution.

It’s just wild to me, though, that we have so few people and politicians on both sides of the aisle willing to fiercely defend the legitimacy of our institutions. This is certainly a new phenomenon, started during Watergate sure, but it’s now both dominant political parties collectively attacking every important institution we have.

Maybe that’s wrong though: maybe these message boards and my time on them color my view as to how prevalent this is (damn human biases!).

After the IRS and Lois Lerner's targeting of conservative organizations and the FBI's involvement in the Russian Collusion hoax, why does it seem so wild that someone wouldn't defend the legitimacy of our institutions?

These "institutions" are made up of Ivy League sycophants whose sole purpose is to get rich - or remain rich - off their government contacts after they retire. Of course, some are doing what they think is best for the country, but some have proved they'll break the law to achieve what they think is 'best'.

This is the very definintion of Big Brother and I'm glad people are waking up to it.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Hard to refute what you wrote, huh?

Dan you’re so far lost you might be Stoll’s contractor.

 

[stollcpa]

I have no idea what you mean by any of these “points.” I am glad you think 1/6 was awful. Do you ascribe any guilt (moral or criminal) to Trump?

I don’t think 99% of the people that went to DC on 1-6 had any thoughts of rioting. I think when Trump addressed the crowd all he wanted was a loud massive protest. I think after it got out of hand he had a moral and ethical obligation to quickly get on TV and social media and tell the rioters in the protest to stop.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Which issue? Ranger responded to my post which is squarely about Ted Cruz.

Why would Cruz have “zero” to do with the issue when the video features him asking questions that we think he knows can’t be answered at this time?

I know he responded to a post about Ted Cruz. That’s the problem. Yesterday we had a thread about how trolling is bad for the board. Well here is exhibit “A”.

I have no idea why the Executive Assistant Director refused to answer. The insular nature of the FBI and DOJ is a problem. Thinking they can hide from public scrutiny must Be rejected. In my view, general questions about how our law enforcement apparatus investigates politics and political activities ought to be high on our list of public disclosure and knowledge. The school board mess and ought to be enough to trigger full inquiry by itself. Instead we get obfuscation and bullshit. We need to tread very lightly on mixing politics and criminal activity. It looks like the Democrats are full speed ahead on criminalizing opposing points of view. The speaker of the House said Sunday that the GOP position on voting legislation was a legislative continuance of January 6 for crisesakes. This isn’t Cuba or North Korea. .

 

[mushroomgod_1]

It’s laughable to me that Trumpers (which is what you’ve all become) think that the FBI is this bastion of progressivism and liberalism. In reality, the average FBI agent is far more likely to be conservative and GOP-leaning.

Rank & file perhaps. Definitely not the leadership. Big difference.

In any event, it's as much a matter of self-protection and freedom to do what the hell they want to with no accountability as much as political leanings. They have gone rogue.

 

[stollcpa]

Dan you’re so far lost you might be Stoll’s contractor.

Ranger I hope you’re kidding about my IT guy. He’s not a nut.

 

[76-1]

It’s laughable to me that Trumpers (which is what you’ve all become) think that the FBI is this bastion of progressivism and liberalism. In reality, the average FBI agent is far more likely to be conservative and GOP-leaning.

I happen to know a few FBI agents and they are exactly how you describe them... Problem is, they are routinely betrayed by their leadership which has turned the FBI, from the top down, into little more than a Gestapo directed by the DNC... That's a problem we All should be concerned about...

 

[IUCrazy2]

Cruz is a smart guy. Is he trashing faith in the FBI and our government to score political points because he knows that the FBI can't answer these questions? If so, he's evil, and I save that word and use it for extreme circumstances. (I think this is a distinct possibility.)

But I'm ignorant on how these matters work. Cant the FBI go into a closed, confidential committee session and answer these questions? Is there a statute preventing this or just operating procedure (that is there for good reason, no doubt)? If it is just operating procedure, then the President can surely tell them to override that to allow Congress to investigate the events of January 6th, no? I mean, it's the Democrats and Biden who believe that the events of Jan. 6th were an existential threat to our democracy--that level of threat should lead to exceptions to the general rule, no?

In other words, if Biden can blow a hole into this kind of thing, he should. If it means making an exception to typical policy, I think it's worth it because that video and this kind of thinking and posture towards our government and what it is capable of is going to do long term, serious damage to our already floundering Republic.

Respectfully the damage is already done. You can go from the absolute nonsense that was pushed by the FBI w.r.t. Russian collusion down to their methods in catching "kidnappers" in Michigan. The left did not trust them and now a hefty portion of the right does not either.

Whenever politics are allowed into institutions that clearly need to hoe a nonpartisan row, the institution is damaged. Trump and the over the top reaction to him just sunk a final nail in the trust coffin. And frankly I think more of that was due to the initial reaction to him. It was over the top and it fed insecurities in him which led to a downward spiral that has us here today.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I know he responded to a post about Ted Cruz. That’s the problem. Yesterday we had a thread about how trolling is bad for the board. Well here is exhibit “A”.

I have no idea why the Executive Assistant Director refused to answer. The insular nature of the FBI and DOJ is a problem. Thinking they can hide from public scrutiny must Be rejected. In my view, general questions about how our law enforcement apparatus investigates politics and political activities ought to be high on our list of public disclosure and knowledge. The school board mess and ought to be enough to trigger full inquiry by itself. Instead we get obfuscation and bullshit. We need to tread very lightly on mixing politics and criminal activity. It looks like the Democrats are full speed ahead on criminalizing opposing points of view. The speaker of the House said Sunday that the GOP position on voting legislation was a legislative continuance of January 6 for crisesakes. This isn’t Cuba or North Korea. .

You are using the verb trolling in a strange way that I don’t quite understand.

 

[Crayfish57]

🤣 🤣 🤣

Just go away you have no balls

 

[DANC]

I have no idea what you mean by any of these “points.” I am glad you think 1/6 was awful. Do you ascribe any guilt (moral or criminal) to Trump?

He could have done something sooner to try to cool thinkgs down, but I doubt it would have done any good. The crowd was there to protest and demonstrate and it got out of hand.

Do I think Trump was personally upset it was happening? Maybe not - I don't really know.

But, so what? I've said many times Trump is not a person I'd want to put up as a model citizen. We all - deep inside - have innermost thoughts and feelings that aren't pure. Many politicians before Trump have done many more things that are worse than whatever Trump said or did. But they don't get vitriol spewed at them for over 4 years that Trump has endured.

Criminal guilt? No. Moral guilt? Who is the arbiter of morals? Everyone has to make their own decision. For you, yes. For me, not really.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Ranger I hope you’re kidding about my IT guy. He’s not a nut.

I was kidding. But with the limited info I’ve seen of him / he’s most definitely a nut. But he’s your nut and that’s fine!

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Just go away you have no balls

Sorry, mouthbreather…I was here first.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I happen to know a few FBI agents and they are exactly how you describe them... Problem is, they are routinely betrayed by their leadership which has turned the FBI, from the top down, into little more than a Gestapo directed by the DNC... That's a problem we All should be concerned about...

The boots on the ground follow lawful orders. Inciting a riot isn’t a lawful order.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.

Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.

According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.

Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."

Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.

So, what did any of that have to do with Nancy Pelosi?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I always ask “what’s the endgame or objective” before I give these theories any merit or deep consideration. So I ask you, what’s the endgame or objective for FBI agents or another agency to foment violence at this rally turned riot?

Because I can tell you that the LEOs I know at fed level would never follow an order to foment violence at a political rally to make one side look bad. It’s also an illegal order.

We can badmouth bureaucrats all we want - and we’re probably right - but at the end of the day the boots on the ground have to act and I’d like to think they won’t act on illegal orders.

I don't know. I mean ask the same question for the Whitmer ordeal. They had guys reacting badly and then put pressure on to try and get them to act worse. The only thing I can think of is that a bigger crime ring being busted up looks better on the resume or for external propaganda. A little prodding could be the difference between trespassing and "we saved the Republic".

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I don't know. I mean ask the same question for the Whitmer ordeal. They had guys reacting badly and then put pressure on to try and get them to act worse. The only thing I can think of is that a bigger crime ring being busted up looks better on the resume or for external propaganda. A little prodding could be the difference between trespassing and "we saved the Republic".

Let’s be clear about the Whitmer thing - because I think that was a disaster too. They didn’t start from nothing. They were responding to people they thought were radicalized based on social media and message board posting. It’s similar to what was done to jihadis in the US. We can’t have it both ways - if we’re for FBI agents turning angry Muslims into jihadis so we can stop pre-crime then we can’t be too upset over Michigan.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

He could have done something sooner to try to cool thinkgs down, but I doubt it would have done any good. The crowd was there to protest and demonstrate and it got out of hand.

Do I think Trump was personally upset it was happening? Maybe not - I don't really know.

But, so what? I've said many times Trump is not a person I'd want to put up as a model citizen. We all - deep inside - have innermost thoughts and feelings that aren't pure. Many politicians before Trump have done many more things that are worse than whatever Trump said or did. But they don't get vitriol spewed at them for over 4 years that Trump has endured.

Criminal guilt? No. Moral guilt? Who is the arbiter of morals? Everyone has to make their own decision. For you, yes. For me, not really.

People are dead because Trump told them the election was stolen. If you ascribe no moral guilt to Trump then you and I could not be friends, could not do business together and could not coexist in the same place because you have no morals. I think you can ascribe some moral guilt to Trump.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I’d support a bipartisan, 50/50, investigation and report about the FBI, it’s tactics, and whether political ideology is coloring how agents or directors act. Like with election logistics, it seems important to reestablish the legitimacy of an important institution.

It’s just wild to me, though, that we have so few people and politicians on both sides of the aisle willing to fiercely defend the legitimacy of our institutions. This is certainly a new phenomenon, started during Watergate sure, but it’s now both dominant political parties collectively attacking every important institution we have.

Maybe that’s wrong though: maybe these message boards and my time on them color my view as to how prevalent this is (damn human biases!).

You say 'legitimacy has to be reestablished'. I agree with this. Then you say 'the legitimacy of our institutions needs to be defended'. What legitimacy? I look at the President, Congress, the FBI, the CIA, and the Democratic Party.....and see rot.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I know he responded to a post about Ted Cruz. That’s the problem. Yesterday we had a thread about how trolling is bad for the board. Well here is exhibit “A”.

I have no idea why the Executive Assistant Director refused to answer. The insular nature of the FBI and DOJ is a problem. Thinking they can hide from public scrutiny must Be rejected. In my view, general questions about how our law enforcement apparatus investigates politics and political activities ought to be high on our list of public disclosure and knowledge. The school board mess and ought to be enough to trigger full inquiry by itself. Instead we get obfuscation and bullshit. We need to tread very lightly on mixing politics and criminal activity. It looks like the Democrats are full speed ahead on criminalizing opposing points of view. The speaker of the House said Sunday that the GOP position on voting legislation was a legislative continuance of January 6 for crisesakes. This isn’t Cuba or North Korea. .

The school board mess needs to be investigated 100%. The Michigan debacle should be investigated 100%.

None of this means that they were involved in 1/6.