What propaganda are you referring to?
Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, History, Sociology, Economics, Physics.
You forgot “any media outlet not from the far right”.
Which sometimes even makes Fox News part of the left wing propaganda machine when they try to report facts on the rare occasion and get attacked for it.
You are missing the root cause. If you are un-linked from reality, you think you are surrounded by propaganda, where “normals” only see reality.
Didn’t a bigger percentage of Gen-Xers vote for Trump than the Boomers? I thought I read that somewhere.
40-49 year olds voted 54% Biden 44% Trump
Indeed.
There is is a distinction between a revolution, where the insurgents win the coup d’etat , and where they don’t when the correct terminology is a mutiny.
ISTR reading an article that said that within Gen-X there’s a pretty stark division in love for Trump that corresponds pretty closely to whether you were born in the 1960s (like Trump), or the 1970s (dislike Trump).
Hmm, I was born in the 70s and dislike Trump, so that’s one corroborating data point. 
The older X cohort got introduced to a Trump still the big shot property magnate making big flashy deals. The younger set got to know him as already a tabloid fixture.
I was born in the '60s and can’t stand the guy, but that may be because I grew up in NYC so I already knew about all of his sleaziness.
If they have good reason to believe someone broke the law, they should investigate.
Which they are.
The committee is not investigating legitimate political discourse. They are investigating people who actually committed crimes.
By censoring Chaney for being part of an investigation of legitamate political discourse, they are either.
- Claiming that those who committed crimes were actually just involved in legitimate political discourse
or
- Claiming that the commitee is investigating people that they aren’t.
But they are doing so it such a way without being clear as to exactly which of these options is true. So those who believe that the attack on the capitol was legitimate can think they are saying the first thing, and those who don’t can believe the second one. And they are doing so in a way that seems to give them the moral high ground. After all who wants legitimate political discourse investigated.
And you have fallen for their sophist trap hook line and sinker.
As an analogy I could say that I opposed the Valachi hearings because while I support the investigation of organized crime I oppose the investigation of legitimate businessmen.
Note that conducting this investigation may involve calling witnesses some of whom are not considered suspects but whose testimony might shed light on those who are. For examples staffers being asked about the actions of their bosses. I expect that the next round of claims of witch hunting by the GOP will involve failing to recognize this distinction, and accusing the committee of investigating those people.
I am sorry, but I skipped reading the rest of this thread to respond to this false assertion.
There seems to be baked into these statements the belief that violence needs to be present for criminality to be present. That is profoundly false!!
(That some in the crowd that day were innocent and others were guilty seem obvious to me, but practicing violence is not what defines the difference between the two groups. I have even seen video of protesters outside the capitol protecting mainstream (read as: liberal) journalists saying to more rabidly enthusiastic participants: “That is not who we are.” I also saw one participant inside the building help a capitol officer back to his (or her?) feet after being knocked down at a time that seemed very early on in the breach. Both of those actions are the opposite of being violent, but at least one of them had entered a restricted area thereby breaking the law and committing a crime.)
As others have pointed out, no one wants to prosecute innocent bystanders. Why would the committee waste any time at all trying to pin something on folks outside the Capitol doing nothing wrong? Guilt by association does not hold up well in court I am told, and it contradicts their true and stated purpose of getting to bottom of what happen that day and leading up to that day, and also the false idea of a punitive political exercise to attack Trump and his sycophants. Being punitive just for the sake of being punitive is both juvenile and a waste of resources.
But non violent political operatives who drew up false slates of electors and submitted them as authentic are absolutely guilty of crimes. In a few instances the signers had the good sense to place verbiage denoting the slate is an auxiliary slate intended to be submitted ONLY if something is overturned by the courts. In the other states the signers are criminals if they committed violence or not. And without those slates of electors-- there would be no cause for congress members to challenge the certified results. It WAS a part of an organized effort to reverse the results of an election and therefore a crime with or without violence being present. Those documents sure as hell did not materialize by themselves and those who worked to get them created and submitted are very likely to be guilty of crimes. If the Committee is allowed to pursue their investigation there is little doubt where the organizers of that particular effort will be found.
Yes, everyone who used force, used violence, or even came along later after the breach had happened and went inside are guilty of crimes. Those outside who never entered the grounds or the building and never assaulted anyone at all- especially law officers, probably are not - - UNLESS they were part of a conspiracy to stop the certification, or support the rioters by delivering weapons after the building was taken, or sending maps or the location of targets to those inside. But those who sent them down to the Capitol to have the certification stopped – after arranging for false slates of electors are criminals with blood on their hands despite not being personally involved in the violence that day. Those who delayed sending support to the security forces at the Capitol are very likely guilty of crimes.
Back to the OP, as for the current Republican Party failing, in the big picture the only way they do not sometime in the next fifty years (likely sooner) is if they gain enough power to become authoritarian and suppress dissenting views using methods repugnant to our still free society.
I have no problem whatsoever picturing a Trump led party abolishing elections entirely, establishing re-education camps, requiring overt oaths of fealty to remain citizens and all the other tools used by dictators. I would not even expect them to bother to keep up the illusion of a representative government. No longer a republic and certainly not a democracy, I believe if Trump ever regains executive power, we will shoot right past oligarchy into fully authoritarian territory.
And for those who remain on the right (you certainly have stronger stomachs and weaker moral fiber than I have [*]), let me suggest to you that all these innocent people who were innocent bystanders around the organized effort to change the result of the 2020 presidential election should be cooperating with the committee. What could possibly be more pro law enforcement and more pro personal responsibility, and what could be a better example of avoiding partisan politics in favor of “America First” than cooperation with the committee?? If all of these people are innocent, why are they stonewalling, delaying, suing to protect communications, and taking the fifth to avoid self incrimination??? Those character traits were highly valued for most of the decades I spent as a registered Republican and I consider it a damn shame that current day Republicans have abandoned those principles.
[*] Note: Not meant as a personal insult toward anyone – but certainly a personal judgement of the moral fiber of some Republicans, especially those voted for the censure.
What the heck are you talking about?
You posted that in reply to the bit you copy-and-pasted; but the bit you copy-and-pasted makes no such mention of violence. You quote me on the question of whether anybody who committed crimes — not violent crimes, just crimes — should be prosecuted. You then quote me quoting Rubio about crimes: not violent crimes; just, y’know, crimes. And then, after you quote me on the subject of “lawbreakers” — with still no mention of violence, since I’m of course already on board so long as they merely “broke the law” — you say that a belief that isn’t there is profoundly false, exclamation point, exclamation point.
If this were a conversation, that might be understandable; but why the heck would you rail against the opposite of my position upon typing out a quote that says no such thing?
On the contrary, the statement frames the issue purely in terms of mob violence by surgically excluding the seditious activities involved in planning and preparation for that event:
Nonsense. If anything, it mentions crimes committed on the 6th, not violent crimes committed on the 6th — which still makes the bit about “the belief that violence needs to be present for criminality to be present” a non sequitur — but it then helpfully mentions “those who broke the law” with mention of neither violence nor the 6th.
Note, too, that hours before Temporary_Name’s copy-and-paste, I answered Euphonious_Polemic’s question about those who planned and promoted it before January 6th; my response of course made reference to them breaking the law, and nothing else besides: neither violence nor the 6th.
Rubio specifically said those who entered the Capitol and committed violence should be prosecuted. It’s not a non sequitur. The Republicans explicitly do not want to investigate anyone who wasn’t physically in the Capitol being violent. Hence, any Republicans who support an investigation going beyond those who were directly involved in violence are censured.
You are bending over backwards to ignore half of Rubio’s statement, and pretend that’s not what he’s saying or what the Republicans are doing.
it seems that you are in agreement with everyone here that ANYone who committed crimes should be investigated, including those who aided, planned, and conspired to help and assist the mob. and that the investigation should include the REASONS why this was planned, aided and assisted - what the ultimate goal of storming the Capitol was, ie overturning a fair and valid election.
So we’re all in agreement that the investigation should focus on all crimes committed, both directly on January 6, as well as in the planning of January 6, and the ultimate goal of January 6.
The thing is - the Republican party DOES NOT SHARE this desire to investigate. They want to LIMIT the investigation to shield those who are responsible for the planning, assisting, aiding and guiding the mob. If you cannot see that this is the basic purpose of trying to shut down the committee, and in censuring Cheney and Kinzinger, and the whole “just legitimate political discourse” bullshit, then there is nothing more to be said.
Sure, the Republicans are destined to fail, problem is that they will take the rest of the country with them.
Those who defend them either do so out of ignorance or malice, but it doesn’t really matter the motive, it’s the act that is damaging to our nation, and the rest of the world for that matter.