AMA Fuzzy Bear (approaching age 65 version)

[Meclazine for Israel]

What impact do you think you have had on inexperienced forum dwellers in their early twenties with little to no social life and relatively ample amounts of free time?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What TV shows did you watch as a kid?

Kid shows:

The Little Rascals
The Three Stooges
Hanna Barbera Cartoons
8th Man (a Japanese cartoon about a robot who could change faces)
Courageous Cat and Minute Mouse
Crusader Rabbit
Go Go Gophers
Popeye

After age 9:

The Time Tunnel
Get Smart
Green Acres
Dragnet
Perry Mason (reruns)
I Dream of Jeannie
Please Don't Eat the Daisies
My Mother, The Car
Batman
The Green Hornet
Ironside
Perry Mason (reruns)
All in the Family

I watched every baseball, football, and basketball game I could after age 8.  In my teens, I watched "This Week in the NFL" religously.  On Sunday mornings, after my parents no longer made me go to church, I'd watch Roller Derby and Wrestling.

I began watching the news at age 9 or so.  I remember the Huntley-Brinkley Report.  (I saw Chet Huntley walk by when my Grandmother took me to Radio City.)  I watched a 60 minutes on air pollution in the early 1970s and they talked then about air pollution resulting in a jungle climate across North America if unchecked.  (I also remember films at school suggesting that we could have another Ice Age at the same time.)   I began following elections in earnest in 1968 at age 11, and I remember watching news shows regularly from age 13 onward

I remember in 1966 watching a special on "Africa" narrated by Gregory Peck.  I remember Peck showing the "Tribal" map of Africa and how it differed from the maps drawn by Europeans, and how Africans' first loyalty was to their tribes, and not to their nations which, at that time, were newly created.  I've never forgotten that.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

Not trying to sound insulting here, but why do you use Atlas? I post here because I’m in my early twenties with little to no social life and relatively ample amounts of free time. I would hope neither of those things apply to me if I make it to my sixties.

I was a poli sci major in college who has always been interested in politics.  When you get away from USGD there are forums that are more scientific.  A better question would be "Why do you post on USGD?".

[Fuzzy Bear]

What impact do you think you have had on inexperienced forum dwellers in their early twenties with little to no social life and relatively ample amounts of free time?

Some of these people may have literally never interacted with anyone, even online, who held views other than standard Wokeism.

Some of these people may have never encountered a Born Again Christian.

Some of these people may have never seen someone stand up for their views in places where they are not popular.

I hope I've shown people how to stand up for what I believe; indeed, for what I know to be true.  I'm not right about everything, but I'm not going to back down and I'm not going to conform to norms I believe to be false, wrong, or unhealthy.  I also hope to show people that they can't intimidate everyone into submission, even now.  Young people need to know how to stand alone.  It's easy to stand with the pack.  It's often more vital to stand alone, even when others won't understand.  If they live long enough, they will need that skill at some time in their lives.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How is Trump and his team filing lawsuits claiming election fraud and it being dismissed at ever court level for being “frivolous" and "without merit” not the courts saying the election was legitimate? https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-and-allies-launch-new-efforts-to-overturn-biden-victory-in-key-states-20201122-p56gry.html
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/11/19/hls-trump-election-lawsuits/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/04/donald-trump-in-court-443010
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-challenging-bidens-election-wins-in-4-key-states.html

I know you wish for me to gag on you various helpings of Word Salad.

The Pennsylvania case was decided by a Democratic Judge.  If people like you advocated for Trump to not appoint Barrett for the political reasons given, then there is no logical reason to not think that this Democratic appointee wasn't a political hack with a robe.  The Constitution questions as to whether the changes to procedure NOT implemented by the state legislatures:

Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

In Pennsylvania, changes to election law need not only to be ratified by the Legislature, but by amending the State Constitution as well.  These Article 1 issues of Election Law apply in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to say the least.  This decision should have been decided, once and for all, by the Supreme Court which, wrongly (IMO) refused to hear the case.  That act was one of cowardice.  I recognize that the SCOTUS is always concerned about its image because they have conern as to whether or not their orders will be obeyed and enforced, but this was not the time to punt.

THAT question is the FIRST question that can still be decided.  Can rules on how and where we vote be altered by bureaucrats without legislative authority?  It's not about overturning the election at this point, but it iS (for me, anyway) about deciding who decides when and how we vote in Federal Elections.
 

First and foremost the objection to Barrett was the disgusting cyclical way she was appointed so bringing her up as a way to dismiss the ruling is just a ridiculous distraction. Second you were alleging for months without any proof that there was ballot stuffing and literally fake voting going on so to act like your objection to 2020!was based on you feeling the wrong branch branch of a state government was able to change rules on voting (mind said changes actually made voting easier for everybody so to allege the changes was unfair to Trump is silly but that’s a different issue in if itself) is a gross rewriting of your position on 2020

Let's Go, Brandon!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Did you go to college/university? What did you study and how did it influence your views?

I've got a BA in Political Science.

My being saved and being delivered from alcohol addiction colors my life far more than my university education.

[brucejoel99]

Why do you ignore fact-checks of your posts from other posters when they show facts that don't align with your "beliefs"?

Because (A) I work a full-time job, (B) I work a part-time job, (C) some of these "fact checks" are as bogus as the trash on Facebook, and (D) being confronted with their own falsehoods doesn't bring any of your group of posters to say, "Wow, Fuzzy's right here!".  

Ok then, fine: since this is an AMA, after all, I'll just bring the fact-checks - no quotation marks necessary since facts are facts & reality is reality, regardless of any of your "beliefs" to the contrary, Fuzzy - to you & you can respond one-by-one.


Claim #1: The U.S. House's Select Committee on the January 6th Attack is unconstitutional, from the "Trump is suing the January 6 commission" thread, where it was then fact-checked not by "[my] group of posters" (presumably red-avs?) but literally by one of the most-prominent blue-avs on this forum, NC Yankee. Of course, you promptly ignored NC Yankee's fact-check, despite having had a presumably ample amount of time to have the opportunity to see it, given that you later successfully replied to a VBNMWEB comment in the very same thread 14 hours after NC Yankee posted the fact-check:

The January 6th commission is unconstitutional.  If their are "crimes", that is the province of the DOJ.

Oh come on Fuzzy Bear, this is flat out ridiculous. Congress can empanel any investigatory body it wants and it has subpoena power that has long been recognized by the courts.

This imperial President/unitary executive/executive tyranny bs needs to be brutally annihilated before this country becomes a Presidential dictatorship. I railed against executive overreach under four different administrations from both parties and this constant selective memory loss every time the President changes hands and suddenly executive excess is just beautiful, is beyond old and tiring.

Congress has ceded way too much power to the Presidency far and above and beyond what the framers had in mind. The idea that we are going to deny Congress, its most basic oversight powers, is a recipe for future Presidents including Democratic ones to do all kinds of nefarious actions because they know there will be no oversight and no accountability.  

Claim #2: The claim that "racism is a public health issue" is purely political nonsense that's recognized as such by "ordinary people," from the "CDC Declares Racism a Serious Public Health Threat" thread, where it was then fact-checked by Ferguson97, who cited the peer-reviewed American Journal of Managed Care, research from the National Institutes of Health, & analysis of life-expectancy trends undertaken by USA Today in response to your falsehood, only to be ignored:

Saying that "racism" is a "public health issue" is nonsense, and ordinary people recognize this as pure politics.

Really, Fuzzy? Well, let's look at the facts.

American women die in childbirth at a higher rate than in any other developed country, while non-Hispanic Black women are more than 3 times more likely to have a maternal death than white women in the United States.

Black Americans are systematically undertreated for pain relative to white Americans.

The U.S. lost a whole year of life expectancy – and for Black people, it's nearly 3 times worse

I encourage you to use your critical thinking skills on this issue.

Claim #3: The Forum cared enough about Ted Cruz's Cancun scandal to dedicate 5 pages of a thread to it than we did about Andrew Cuomo's myriad of scandals because the Forum has a pro-Democratic bias & focusing on the latter scandals would be too inconvenient for Democrats to bear, from the "With millions of Texas without power or water, Ted Cruz heads to Cancun for vacation" thread, where it was then fact-checked by myself pointing out to you that, at that point in time, only 5 pages of Forum space had been dedicated to the Cruz scandal compared to more than 5 pages of threads having been dedicated to the Cuomo scandals. This, of course, was yet another fact-check that you promptly ignored despite having had a presumably ample amount of time to have the opportunity to see it, given that you later successfully replied to a CraneHusband comment in the very same thread 3 hours after I fact-checked your outright falsehood about Atlas:

At least the people of Texas (A) are alive to boil the snow and (B) were not put in that position by Ted Cruz.  Those who died of COVID-19 in NY nursing homes, only to become falsified statistical items after their deaths were brought to that fate by Andrew Cuomo, and they are no longer alive.

We have 5 pages of thread of "outrage" against Cruz.  Where's the outrage thread against Cuomo?  Or is that inconvenient?  Why isn't that 5 pages long?

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=430452.0

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=320997.msg7956578#msg7956578

Combine the USGD thread on Cuomo & the gubernatorial thread from the point at which only his latest scandal broke out, & you get - surprise, surprise - 5 pages. Add in the mention of his previous COVID scandals in the gubernatorial thread, & it's much longer than this thread.

So, pure disingenuousness of your failed attempt at a whataboutism aside, why are you literally just so wrong all of the time that it's not even funny anymore? Really, it's just so terribly sad.

Or do you seriously believe that a number greater than 5 is actually somehow less than 5?


Claim #4: Tucker Carlson doesn't need to be shamed for lying about the Biden marriage because the same thing has been said about the Trumps' marriage, from the "Tucker Carlson says Biden's marriage is "as real as climate change"" thread, in which South Dakota Democrat pointed out to you that, unlike the Bidens', it has actually been confirmed that Trump's marriages were &/or are, at the very least, rocky. You, of course, promptly ignored such truth being pointed out to you:

People have said worse about the Trumps' marriage on these pages and no one is shamed.  Carlson's comments are in that context.  I'll rebuke Carlson when those who have made similar comments about the Trumps.  That ought to be fair.

What a breathtakingly stupid post.  Perhaps because actual facts matter?  Trump has cheated on all of his wives and his current wife re-negotiated her prenup before agreeing to go to the White House.  You are 100% the worst poster on this site.

Claim #5: Lauran Boebert attending a virtual committee hearing with her gun shrine in the background is "fine," in the "Lauren Boebert attends virtual committee hearing with her gun shrine in the background" thread, in response to which I promptly pointed out that even pro-gun individuals should recognize the danger of her claim, only to be ignored by you:

I'm fine with this.

Well, if they're actually loaded & ready for use as she so claimed (& based on a side shot of those guns, their mags do appear to be in & clearly loaded), then even the most ardent of pro-gun individuals who'd otherwise be fine with this such as yourself should understand how that's actually a potential danger.

Claim #6: Nobody in the "Rachel Maddow wins $250,000 from OAN" thread was as complimentary when Nick Sandmann won his lawsuit for being defamed, to which I pointed out to you that literally I had been, only to - of course - get ignored.

Just saying:

I'm noticing that no one here was this celebratory when Nick Sandmann won his lawsuit for being defamed.

Just sayin'.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=384430.0

Why would you say something so matter-of-factly that's so easily, provably false?

Claim #7: Biden spent his campaign in his basement. No, of course, he didn't. Yet, of course, you don't care about facts:

He's hid in his basement for most of the campaign.

https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1322569017412997122

Claim #8: Congress statutorily providing for a non-Cabinet body that could invoke the 25th Amendment is unconstitutional, from the "Pelosi: "Tomorrow we are going to be talking about the 25th Amendment."" thread, despite the fact that - of course - the text of the 25th Amendment literally provides for "such other body as Congress may by law provide." Granted, you actually took the time to respond to this fact-check; the only problem was that you response consisted of acknowledging the existence of the fact-check before then ignoring it in favor of continuing to assert that the proposal was unconstitutional, in response to which I asked you the following question, to which I've still yet to receive an answer:

This seems like the dumbest possible thing to do less than a month from the election. But I'd be shocked if House Dem leadership wasn't doing something stupid at any given moment.

Nah. As usual Nancy's crazy like a fox. She's setting up a procedure to set up a commission to review when a president should be incapacitated and removed via the 25th Amendment due to medical and psychological problems. She's not trying to invoke it against Trump directly. However, it's very clearly and loudly sends the message that Trump is the reason behind it and helps to focus attention on the fact that he is physically and mentally degenerating in a downward spiral more akin to a kamikaze pilot. If she plays her cards right it just might create enough fire and outrage from Trump and his sycophants that it helps amplify the ongoing media story about Trump losing it.

People have tried to portray Trump as a 4D chess player when he can't even managed Checkers adequately. Nancy's the Real Genius here.

She's the genius only because she's hidden the fact that this unconstitutional cockamamie proposal isn't about Donald Trump; it's about Joe Biden.  It's about being able to remove Senile Joe from office and install Der Kommissar Kamala Harris as President.

Right now, declaring a President incapacitated would involve a vote of the Cabinet.  This is something that gets dicey; it would tax the loyalty of a Cabinet official to vote their boss out, especially when (A) your boss picked you for your job and (B) you well may not have been the pick of the new boss. (Just ask JFK's Cabinet when LBJ took office.)  Creating a "commission" bypasses all of that.  I doubt Pelosi's idea will pass Congress and I doubt even more that it will pass Constitutional muster, but it's not about Trump.  She even specified that this was about "future President" and look who's the most likely "future President" at this moment.

You know that the 25th Amendment of the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to create a body outside of the cabinet for this purpose, right? Honestly, why do you even post In topics like this if you’re not going to read up on the basic legal issues involved?

Congress hasn't established that Commission yet.  This is a hamhanded attempt to do so.

Right, Pelosi is proposing a bill that would have to be passed by Congress. So what exactly makes the proposal “unconstitutional” as you asserted several times?

Section 4:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[6]

What's going to happen when Joe Biden says he's up to the job?

This cockamamie scheme is a receipe for a Constitutional Crisis.

Simple question: do you or do you not know what "unconstitutional" means?

And that's just what I could immediately find from the entire last year's worth of fact-checked Fuzziness.

[brucejoel99]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

[Hindsight was 2020]

How is Trump and his team filing lawsuits claiming election fraud and it being dismissed at ever court level for being “frivolous" and "without merit” not the courts saying the election was legitimate? https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-and-allies-launch-new-efforts-to-overturn-biden-victory-in-key-states-20201122-p56gry.html
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/11/19/hls-trump-election-lawsuits/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/04/donald-trump-in-court-443010
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-challenging-bidens-election-wins-in-4-key-states.html

I know you wish for me to gag on you various helpings of Word Salad.

The Pennsylvania case was decided by a Democratic Judge.  If people like you advocated for Trump to not appoint Barrett for the political reasons given, then there is no logical reason to not think that this Democratic appointee wasn't a political hack with a robe.  The Constitution questions as to whether the changes to procedure NOT implemented by the state legislatures:

Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

In Pennsylvania, changes to election law need not only to be ratified by the Legislature, but by amending the State Constitution as well.  These Article 1 issues of Election Law apply in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to say the least.  This decision should have been decided, once and for all, by the Supreme Court which, wrongly (IMO) refused to hear the case.  That act was one of cowardice.  I recognize that the SCOTUS is always concerned about its image because they have conern as to whether or not their orders will be obeyed and enforced, but this was not the time to punt.

THAT question is the FIRST question that can still be decided.  Can rules on how and where we vote be altered by bureaucrats without legislative authority?  It's not about overturning the election at this point, but it iS (for me, anyway) about deciding who decides when and how we vote in Federal Elections.
 

First and foremost the objection to Barrett was the disgusting cyclical way she was appointed so bringing her up as a way to dismiss the ruling is just a ridiculous distraction. Second you were alleging for months without any proof that there was ballot stuffing and literally fake voting going on so to act like your objection to 2020!was based on you feeling the wrong branch branch of a state government was able to change rules on voting (mind said changes actually made voting easier for everybody so to allege the changes was unfair to Trump is silly but that’s a different issue in if itself) is a gross rewriting of your position on 2020

Let's Go, Brandon!

So you got nothing 👍. Also how Christian of you 🙄

[Fuzzy Bear]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

Because Trump isn't senile and Biden is well on his way there.  People here do a poor job of knowing who's senile and who isn't.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do you ignore fact-checks of your posts from other posters when they show facts that don't align with your "beliefs"?

Because (A) I work a full-time job, (B) I work a part-time job, (C) some of these "fact checks" are as bogus as the trash on Facebook, and (D) being confronted with their own falsehoods doesn't bring any of your group of posters to say, "Wow, Fuzzy's right here!".  

Ok then, fine: since this is an AMA, after all, I'll just bring the fact-checks - no quotation marks necessary since facts are facts & reality is reality, regardless of any of your "beliefs" to the contrary, Fuzzy - to you & you can respond one-by-one.


Claim #1: The U.S. House's Select Committee on the January 6th Attack is unconstitutional, from the "Trump is suing the January 6 commission" thread, where it was then fact-checked not by "[my] group of posters" (presumably red-avs?) but literally by one of the most-prominent blue-avs on this forum, NC Yankee. Of course, you promptly ignored NC Yankee's fact-check, despite having had a presumably ample amount of time to have the opportunity to see it, given that you later successfully replied to a VBNMWEB comment in the very same thread 14 hours after NC Yankee posted the fact-check:

The January 6th commission is unconstitutional.  If their are "crimes", that is the province of the DOJ.

Oh come on Fuzzy Bear, this is flat out ridiculous. Congress can empanel any investigatory body it wants and it has subpoena power that has long been recognized by the courts.

This imperial President/unitary executive/executive tyranny bs needs to be brutally annihilated before this country becomes a Presidential dictatorship. I railed against executive overreach under four different administrations from both parties and this constant selective memory loss every time the President changes hands and suddenly executive excess is just beautiful, is beyond old and tiring.

Congress has ceded way too much power to the Presidency far and above and beyond what the framers had in mind. The idea that we are going to deny Congress, its most basic oversight powers, is a recipe for future Presidents including Democratic ones to do all kinds of nefarious actions because they know there will be no oversight and no accountability.  

Claim #2: The claim that "racism is a public health issue" is purely political nonsense that's recognized as such by "ordinary people," from the "CDC Declares Racism a Serious Public Health Threat" thread, where it was then fact-checked by Ferguson97, who cited the peer-reviewed American Journal of Managed Care, research from the National Institutes of Health, & analysis of life-expectancy trends undertaken by USA Today in response to your falsehood, only to be ignored:

Saying that "racism" is a "public health issue" is nonsense, and ordinary people recognize this as pure politics.

Really, Fuzzy? Well, let's look at the facts.

American women die in childbirth at a higher rate than in any other developed country, while non-Hispanic Black women are more than 3 times more likely to have a maternal death than white women in the United States.

Black Americans are systematically undertreated for pain relative to white Americans.

The U.S. lost a whole year of life expectancy – and for Black people, it's nearly 3 times worse

I encourage you to use your critical thinking skills on this issue.

Claim #3: The Forum cared enough about Ted Cruz's Cancun scandal to dedicate 5 pages of a thread to it than we did about Andrew Cuomo's myriad of scandals because the Forum has a pro-Democratic bias & focusing on the latter scandals would be too inconvenient for Democrats to bear, from the "With millions of Texas without power or water, Ted Cruz heads to Cancun for vacation" thread, where it was then fact-checked by myself pointing out to you that, at that point in time, only 5 pages of Forum space had been dedicated to the Cruz scandal compared to more than 5 pages of threads having been dedicated to the Cuomo scandals. This, of course, was yet another fact-check that you promptly ignored despite having had a presumably ample amount of time to have the opportunity to see it, given that you later successfully replied to a CraneHusband comment in the very same thread 3 hours after I fact-checked your outright falsehood about Atlas:

At least the people of Texas (A) are alive to boil the snow and (B) were not put in that position by Ted Cruz.  Those who died of COVID-19 in NY nursing homes, only to become falsified statistical items after their deaths were brought to that fate by Andrew Cuomo, and they are no longer alive.

We have 5 pages of thread of "outrage" against Cruz.  Where's the outrage thread against Cuomo?  Or is that inconvenient?  Why isn't that 5 pages long?

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=430452.0

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=320997.msg7956578#msg7956578

Combine the USGD thread on Cuomo & the gubernatorial thread from the point at which only his latest scandal broke out, & you get - surprise, surprise - 5 pages. Add in the mention of his previous COVID scandals in the gubernatorial thread, & it's much longer than this thread.

So, pure disingenuousness of your failed attempt at a whataboutism aside, why are you literally just so wrong all of the time that it's not even funny anymore? Really, it's just so terribly sad.

Or do you seriously believe that a number greater than 5 is actually somehow less than 5?


Claim #4: Tucker Carlson doesn't need to be shamed for lying about the Biden marriage because the same thing has been said about the Trumps' marriage, from the "Tucker Carlson says Biden's marriage is "as real as climate change"" thread, in which South Dakota Democrat pointed out to you that, unlike the Bidens', it has actually been confirmed that Trump's marriages were &/or are, at the very least, rocky. You, of course, promptly ignored such truth being pointed out to you:

People have said worse about the Trumps' marriage on these pages and no one is shamed.  Carlson's comments are in that context.  I'll rebuke Carlson when those who have made similar comments about the Trumps.  That ought to be fair.

What a breathtakingly stupid post.  Perhaps because actual facts matter?  Trump has cheated on all of his wives and his current wife re-negotiated her prenup before agreeing to go to the White House.  You are 100% the worst poster on this site.

Claim #5: Lauran Boebert attending a virtual committee hearing with her gun shrine in the background is "fine," in the "Lauren Boebert attends virtual committee hearing with her gun shrine in the background" thread, in response to which I promptly pointed out that even pro-gun individuals should recognize the danger of her claim, only to be ignored by you:

I'm fine with this.

Well, if they're actually loaded & ready for use as she so claimed (& based on a side shot of those guns, their mags do appear to be in & clearly loaded), then even the most ardent of pro-gun individuals who'd otherwise be fine with this such as yourself should understand how that's actually a potential danger.

Claim #6: Nobody in the "Rachel Maddow wins $250,000 from OAN" thread was as complimentary when Nick Sandmann won his lawsuit for being defamed, to which I pointed out to you that literally I had been, only to - of course - get ignored.

Just saying:

I'm noticing that no one here was this celebratory when Nick Sandmann won his lawsuit for being defamed.

Just sayin'.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=384430.0

Why would you say something so matter-of-factly that's so easily, provably false?

Claim #7: Biden spent his campaign in his basement. No, of course, he didn't. Yet, of course, you don't care about facts:

He's hid in his basement for most of the campaign.

https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1322569017412997122

Claim #8: Congress statutorily providing for a non-Cabinet body that could invoke the 25th Amendment is unconstitutional, from the "Pelosi: "Tomorrow we are going to be talking about the 25th Amendment."" thread, despite the fact that - of course - the text of the 25th Amendment literally provides for "such other body as Congress may by law provide." Granted, you actually took the time to respond to this fact-check; the only problem was that you response consisted of acknowledging the existence of the fact-check before then ignoring it in favor of continuing to assert that the proposal was unconstitutional, in response to which I asked you the following question, to which I've still yet to receive an answer:

This seems like the dumbest possible thing to do less than a month from the election. But I'd be shocked if House Dem leadership wasn't doing something stupid at any given moment.

Nah. As usual Nancy's crazy like a fox. She's setting up a procedure to set up a commission to review when a president should be incapacitated and removed via the 25th Amendment due to medical and psychological problems. She's not trying to invoke it against Trump directly. However, it's very clearly and loudly sends the message that Trump is the reason behind it and helps to focus attention on the fact that he is physically and mentally degenerating in a downward spiral more akin to a kamikaze pilot. If she plays her cards right it just might create enough fire and outrage from Trump and his sycophants that it helps amplify the ongoing media story about Trump losing it.

People have tried to portray Trump as a 4D chess player when he can't even managed Checkers adequately. Nancy's the Real Genius here.

She's the genius only because she's hidden the fact that this unconstitutional cockamamie proposal isn't about Donald Trump; it's about Joe Biden.  It's about being able to remove Senile Joe from office and install Der Kommissar Kamala Harris as President.

Right now, declaring a President incapacitated would involve a vote of the Cabinet.  This is something that gets dicey; it would tax the loyalty of a Cabinet official to vote their boss out, especially when (A) your boss picked you for your job and (B) you well may not have been the pick of the new boss. (Just ask JFK's Cabinet when LBJ took office.)  Creating a "commission" bypasses all of that.  I doubt Pelosi's idea will pass Congress and I doubt even more that it will pass Constitutional muster, but it's not about Trump.  She even specified that this was about "future President" and look who's the most likely "future President" at this moment.

You know that the 25th Amendment of the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to create a body outside of the cabinet for this purpose, right? Honestly, why do you even post In topics like this if you’re not going to read up on the basic legal issues involved?

Congress hasn't established that Commission yet.  This is a hamhanded attempt to do so.

Right, Pelosi is proposing a bill that would have to be passed by Congress. So what exactly makes the proposal “unconstitutional” as you asserted several times?

Section 4:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[6]

What's going to happen when Joe Biden says he's up to the job?

This cockamamie scheme is a receipe for a Constitutional Crisis.

Simple question: do you or do you not know what "unconstitutional" means?

And that's just what I could immediately find from the entire last year's worth of fact-checked Fuzziness.

None of what you posted are "fact checks".  They are examples of you coming to different conclusions, or others coming to different conclusions than I have on a number of issues.  Many folks here disagree with me.  That's fine, but their contrary opinions, while they may have facts cited in support of them, are not facts themselves.  They are opinions, opinions which I disagree with.

I've changed my mind about many things in life.  I'm open to change my mind on the issues you cite.  Partisan Rat-Packing by the more hackish posters on Atlas isn't the way to do that. 

[brucejoel99]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

Because Trump isn't senile and Biden is well on his way there.  People here do a poor job of knowing who's senile and who isn't.

LMAO wow. Paging r/SelfAwarewolves, because this may very well just be its peak.

[SNIP]

None of what you posted are "fact checks".  They are examples of you coming to different conclusions, or others coming to different conclusions than I have on a number of issues.  Many folks here disagree with me.  That's fine, but their contrary opinions, while they may have facts cited in support of them, are not facts themselves.  They are opinions, opinions which I disagree with.

I've changed my mind about many things in life.  I'm open to change my mind on the issues you cite.  Partisan Rat-Packing by the more hackish posters on Atlas isn't the way to do that. 

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" is a constitutional fact. One simply can't disagree that it exists.

Racism being a public health crisis because racism is the reason that minority communities are in the conditions that they're in is a fact that has been established by scientific research. Wanna disprove it? Become a researcher, & conduct.

A number greater than 5 being greater than 5 is a simple, mathematical fact. You can't disagree & seek to claim that a number greater than 5 is actually lesser than the number 5. You can try, but you just look crazy. Wanna somehow try & disprove it? Become a mathematician, & be my guest at attempting it. Good luck with that, Fuzzy, & sincerely so at that.

Trump affairs have been admitted to in court. Wouldn't you know it(?), that's a legally-established fact. There being no such equivalent for the Bidens having even been alleged is also, wow, a fact. Wanna disprove it? Seduce Jill, & good luck.

The difference between gun safety & irresponsibility is a fact. Ask any responsible gun owner. I'm sure you know plenty.

The fact that there were people in the Maddow thread who acted just as complimentary toward Sandmann when won his lawsuit as they did Maddow when she won hers is also a hitherto linked-to fact. You can't claim that nobody on here acted as complimentary toward Sandmann as they did toward Maddow then the link disproving you is literally right there.

The fact that Biden didn't spend his campaign in his basement is, would you look at that(?), another hitherto linked-to fact.

And to come full-circle, the 25th Amendment's mention of "such other body as Congress may by law provide" is, once again, a simple, constitutional fact. Once again, you can't disagree with the fact that it exists. It literally just does.

Those aren't opinions: views &/or judgments that are formed about something without necessarily being based on either facts &/or knowledge. Those are, quite simply, literal facts: things that are known &/or have been proven to be true. You want an opinion, Fuzzy? Here's an opinion: you should stop saying stuff so matter-of-factly that can so easily be proven false? And so that I might meet the obligatory standards of an AMA, here's a question for you, Fuzzy: why won't you?

[Mr. Morden]

If the election were held today, I would vote for Rubio (whom I voted for in 1976)

Rubio was 5 years old in 1976.  I don't think he would have been eligible to hold office back then.  So I'm sorry to say that you wasted your vote back then.

[Fuzzy Bear]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

Because Trump isn't senile and Biden is well on his way there.  People here do a poor job of knowing who's senile and who isn't.

LMAO wow. Paging r/SelfAwarewolves, because this may very well just be its peak.

[SNIP]

None of what you posted are "fact checks".  They are examples of you coming to different conclusions, or others coming to different conclusions than I have on a number of issues.  Many folks here disagree with me.  That's fine, but their contrary opinions, while they may have facts cited in support of them, are not facts themselves.  They are opinions, opinions which I disagree with.

I've changed my mind about many things in life.  I'm open to change my mind on the issues you cite.  Partisan Rat-Packing by the more hackish posters on Atlas isn't the way to do that. 

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" is a constitutional fact. One simply can't disagree that it exists.

Racism being a public health crisis because racism is the reason that minority communities are in the conditions that they're in is a fact that has been established by scientific research. Wanna disprove it? Become a researcher, & conduct.

A number greater than 5 being greater than 5 is a simple, mathematical fact. You can't disagree & seek to claim that a number greater than 5 is actually lesser than the number 5. You can try, but you just look crazy. Wanna somehow try & disprove it? Become a mathematician, & be my guest at attempting it. Good luck with that, Fuzzy, & sincerely so at that.

Trump affairs have been admitted to in court. Wouldn't you know it(?), that's a legally-established fact. There being no such equivalent for the Bidens having even been alleged is also, wow, a fact. Wanna disprove it? Seduce Jill, & good luck.

The difference between gun safety & irresponsibility is a fact. Ask any responsible gun owner. I'm sure you know plenty.

The fact that there were people in the Maddow thread who acted just as complimentary toward Sandmann when won his lawsuit as they did Maddow when she won hers is also a hitherto linked-to fact. You can't claim that nobody on here acted as complimentary toward Sandmann as they did toward Maddow then the link disproving you is literally right there.

The fact that Biden didn't spend his campaign in his basement is, would you look at that(?), another hitherto linked-to fact.

And to come full-circle, the 25th Amendment's mention of "such other body as Congress may by law provide" is, once again, a simple, constitutional fact. Once again, you can't disagree with the fact that it exists. It literally just does.

Those aren't opinions: views &/or judgments that are formed about something without necessarily being based on either facts &/or knowledge. Those are, quite simply, literal facts: things that are known &/or have been proven to be true. You want an opinion, Fuzzy? Here's an opinion: you should stop saying stuff so matter-of-factly that can so easily be proven false? And so that I might meet the obligatory standards of an AMA, here's a question for you, Fuzzy: why won't you?

I'm going to go to sleep in a little bit.  Tomorrow, I'll get up and go to work.  I've answered all this; this stuff is all opinion, which I disagree with.  Learn to live with people who don't see things your way.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the election were held today, I would vote for Rubio (whom I voted for in 1976)

Rubio was 5 years old in 1976.  I don't think he would have been eligible to hold office back then.  So I'm sorry to say that you wasted your vote back then.

LOL, I meant 2016!

[brucejoel99]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

Because Trump isn't senile and Biden is well on his way there.  People here do a poor job of knowing who's senile and who isn't.

LMAO wow. Paging r/SelfAwarewolves, because this may very well just be its peak.

[SNIP]

None of what you posted are "fact checks".  They are examples of you coming to different conclusions, or others coming to different conclusions than I have on a number of issues.  Many folks here disagree with me.  That's fine, but their contrary opinions, while they may have facts cited in support of them, are not facts themselves.  They are opinions, opinions which I disagree with.

I've changed my mind about many things in life.  I'm open to change my mind on the issues you cite.  Partisan Rat-Packing by the more hackish posters on Atlas isn't the way to do that.  

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" is a constitutional fact. One simply can't disagree that it exists.

Racism being a public health crisis because racism is the reason that minority communities are in the conditions that they're in is a fact that has been established by scientific research. Wanna disprove it? Become a researcher, & conduct.

A number greater than 5 being greater than 5 is a simple, mathematical fact. You can't disagree & seek to claim that a number greater than 5 is actually lesser than the number 5. You can try, but you just look crazy. Wanna somehow try & disprove it? Become a mathematician, & be my guest at attempting it. Good luck with that, Fuzzy, & sincerely so at that.

Trump affairs have been admitted to in court. Wouldn't you know it(?), that's a legally-established fact. There being no such equivalent for the Bidens having even been alleged is also, wow, a fact. Wanna disprove it? Seduce Jill, & good luck.

The difference between gun safety & irresponsibility is a fact. Ask any responsible gun owner. I'm sure you know plenty.

The fact that there were people in the Maddow thread who acted just as complimentary toward Sandmann when won his lawsuit as they did Maddow when she won hers is also a hitherto linked-to fact. You can't claim that nobody on here acted as complimentary toward Sandmann as they did toward Maddow then the link disproving you is literally right there.

The fact that Biden didn't spend his campaign in his basement is, would you look at that(?), another hitherto linked-to fact.

And to come full-circle, the 25th Amendment's mention of "such other body as Congress may by law provide" is, once again, a simple, constitutional fact. Once again, you can't disagree with the fact that it exists. It literally just does.

Those aren't opinions: views &/or judgments that are formed about something without necessarily being based on either facts &/or knowledge. Those are, quite simply, literal facts: things that are known &/or have been proven to be true. You want an opinion, Fuzzy? Here's an opinion: you should stop saying stuff so matter-of-factly that can so easily be proven false? And so that I might meet the obligatory standards of an AMA, here's a question for you, Fuzzy: why won't you?

I'm going to go to sleep in a little bit.  Tomorrow, I'll get up and go to work.  I've answered all this; this stuff is all opinion, which I disagree with.  Learn to live with people who don't see things your way.

Your conclusion entirely depends on what your definition of the word "answer" is, because if it's the same as the rest of society's, then no, you certainly haven't. It appears that just as your analysis of the factual/opinionated dichotomy differs from the consensus of the rest of society, so too does your interpretation of what an answer just, y'know, is. Unlike you, I have no problem living in a society with people who see things differently than I do. No, what I have a problem with is people who are so far gone that they can look at literal facts & say, "no, I don't like this, so I'm just gonna ignore it now." It compels me to practically weep that such is the case. As many have noted, you were once a much better poster than whatever this cesspool of nonsense that you are today is. I truly pray that you find your way back to a modicum of sanity. I mean, you must feel some apprehension at posters who've known you for years not even recognizing what you've become.

Or do you not?

[Fuzzy Bear]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

Because Trump isn't senile and Biden is well on his way there.  People here do a poor job of knowing who's senile and who isn't.

LMAO wow. Paging r/SelfAwarewolves, because this may very well just be its peak.

[SNIP]

None of what you posted are "fact checks".  They are examples of you coming to different conclusions, or others coming to different conclusions than I have on a number of issues.  Many folks here disagree with me.  That's fine, but their contrary opinions, while they may have facts cited in support of them, are not facts themselves.  They are opinions, opinions which I disagree with.

I've changed my mind about many things in life.  I'm open to change my mind on the issues you cite.  Partisan Rat-Packing by the more hackish posters on Atlas isn't the way to do that.  

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" is a constitutional fact. One simply can't disagree that it exists.

Racism being a public health crisis because racism is the reason that minority communities are in the conditions that they're in is a fact that has been established by scientific research. Wanna disprove it? Become a researcher, & conduct.

A number greater than 5 being greater than 5 is a simple, mathematical fact. You can't disagree & seek to claim that a number greater than 5 is actually lesser than the number 5. You can try, but you just look crazy. Wanna somehow try & disprove it? Become a mathematician, & be my guest at attempting it. Good luck with that, Fuzzy, & sincerely so at that.

Trump affairs have been admitted to in court. Wouldn't you know it(?), that's a legally-established fact. There being no such equivalent for the Bidens having even been alleged is also, wow, a fact. Wanna disprove it? Seduce Jill, & good luck.

The difference between gun safety & irresponsibility is a fact. Ask any responsible gun owner. I'm sure you know plenty.

The fact that there were people in the Maddow thread who acted just as complimentary toward Sandmann when won his lawsuit as they did Maddow when she won hers is also a hitherto linked-to fact. You can't claim that nobody on here acted as complimentary toward Sandmann as they did toward Maddow then the link disproving you is literally right there.

The fact that Biden didn't spend his campaign in his basement is, would you look at that(?), another hitherto linked-to fact.

And to come full-circle, the 25th Amendment's mention of "such other body as Congress may by law provide" is, once again, a simple, constitutional fact. Once again, you can't disagree with the fact that it exists. It literally just does.

Those aren't opinions: views &/or judgments that are formed about something without necessarily being based on either facts &/or knowledge. Those are, quite simply, literal facts: things that are known &/or have been proven to be true. You want an opinion, Fuzzy? Here's an opinion: you should stop saying stuff so matter-of-factly that can so easily be proven false? And so that I might meet the obligatory standards of an AMA, here's a question for you, Fuzzy: why won't you?

I'm going to go to sleep in a little bit.  Tomorrow, I'll get up and go to work.  I've answered all this; this stuff is all opinion, which I disagree with.  Learn to live with people who don't see things your way.

Your conclusion entirely depends on what your definition of the word "answer" is, because if it's the same as the rest of society's, then no, you certainly haven't. It appears that just as your analysis of the factual/opinionated dichotomy differs from the consensus of the rest of society, so too does your interpretation of what an answer just, y'know, is. Unlike you, I have no problem living in a society with people who see things differently than I do. No, what I have a problem with is people who are so far gone that they can look at literal facts & say, "no, I don't like this, so I'm just gonna ignore it now." It compels me to practically weep that such is the case. As many have noted, you were once a much better poster than whatever this cesspool of nonsense that you are today is. I truly pray that you find your way back to a modicum of sanity. I mean, you must feel some apprehension at posters who've known you for years not even recognizing what you've become.

Or do you not?

The question you don't ask is:  "How did you, Fuzzy Bear, get from the point of being a young Democratic activist as I am now at the age I am now, to being a Trump supporter?"

You don't ask THAT question.  The answer is an indictment of the Democratic Party and what it has become over my lifetime.

[brucejoel99]

And a tangentially-related follow-up: why do you evidently believe that the rest of Atlas should continue to take such a poster as yourself who's viewed President Biden as a modern-day Marshal Petain since, at the very least, 10 months before he even took the oath-of-office seriously when you yourself had the following to say on this same exact matter in the past:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

Because Trump isn't senile and Biden is well on his way there.  People here do a poor job of knowing who's senile and who isn't.

LMAO wow. Paging r/SelfAwarewolves, because this may very well just be its peak.

[SNIP]

None of what you posted are "fact checks".  They are examples of you coming to different conclusions, or others coming to different conclusions than I have on a number of issues.  Many folks here disagree with me.  That's fine, but their contrary opinions, while they may have facts cited in support of them, are not facts themselves.  They are opinions, opinions which I disagree with.

I've changed my mind about many things in life.  I'm open to change my mind on the issues you cite.  Partisan Rat-Packing by the more hackish posters on Atlas isn't the way to do that.  

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" is a constitutional fact. One simply can't disagree that it exists.

Racism being a public health crisis because racism is the reason that minority communities are in the conditions that they're in is a fact that has been established by scientific research. Wanna disprove it? Become a researcher, & conduct.

A number greater than 5 being greater than 5 is a simple, mathematical fact. You can't disagree & seek to claim that a number greater than 5 is actually lesser than the number 5. You can try, but you just look crazy. Wanna somehow try & disprove it? Become a mathematician, & be my guest at attempting it. Good luck with that, Fuzzy, & sincerely so at that.

Trump affairs have been admitted to in court. Wouldn't you know it(?), that's a legally-established fact. There being no such equivalent for the Bidens having even been alleged is also, wow, a fact. Wanna disprove it? Seduce Jill, & good luck.

The difference between gun safety & irresponsibility is a fact. Ask any responsible gun owner. I'm sure you know plenty.

The fact that there were people in the Maddow thread who acted just as complimentary toward Sandmann when won his lawsuit as they did Maddow when she won hers is also a hitherto linked-to fact. You can't claim that nobody on here acted as complimentary toward Sandmann as they did toward Maddow then the link disproving you is literally right there.

The fact that Biden didn't spend his campaign in his basement is, would you look at that(?), another hitherto linked-to fact.

And to come full-circle, the 25th Amendment's mention of "such other body as Congress may by law provide" is, once again, a simple, constitutional fact. Once again, you can't disagree with the fact that it exists. It literally just does.

Those aren't opinions: views &/or judgments that are formed about something without necessarily being based on either facts &/or knowledge. Those are, quite simply, literal facts: things that are known &/or have been proven to be true. You want an opinion, Fuzzy? Here's an opinion: you should stop saying stuff so matter-of-factly that can so easily be proven false? And so that I might meet the obligatory standards of an AMA, here's a question for you, Fuzzy: why won't you?

I'm going to go to sleep in a little bit.  Tomorrow, I'll get up and go to work.  I've answered all this; this stuff is all opinion, which I disagree with.  Learn to live with people who don't see things your way.

Your conclusion entirely depends on what your definition of the word "answer" is, because if it's the same as the rest of society's, then no, you certainly haven't. It appears that just as your analysis of the factual/opinionated dichotomy differs from the consensus of the rest of society, so too does your interpretation of what an answer just, y'know, is. Unlike you, I have no problem living in a society with people who see things differently than I do. No, what I have a problem with is people who are so far gone that they can look at literal facts & say, "no, I don't like this, so I'm just gonna ignore it now." It compels me to practically weep that such is the case. As many have noted, you were once a much better poster than whatever this cesspool of nonsense that you are today is. I truly pray that you find your way back to a modicum of sanity. I mean, you must feel some apprehension at posters who've known you for years not even recognizing what you've become.

Or do you not?

The question you don't ask is:  "How did you, Fuzzy Bear, get from the point of being a young Democratic activist as I am now at the age I am now, to being a Trump supporter?"

You don't ask THAT question.  The answer is an indictment of the Democratic Party and what it has become over my lifetime.

Young activist Fuzzy is irrelevant. From what I've heard, Joe Biden is a Democratic President who's practically been tailor-made for the Fuzzy of 2012, if not the Fuzzy of 2016, but we unfortunately know just how you got from that point to now.

I'm all out of questions, but I never should've been the one asking you questions to begin with. That should be you, Fuzzy.

[SteveRogers]

Why did you make the claim that “The January 6th commission is unconstitutional”? What did you mean by this, and do you have a legal argument to back that up?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why did you make the claim that “The January 6th commission is unconstitutional”? What did you mean by this, and do you have a legal argument to back that up?

It is not the function either House of Congress to enforce the law.  That function is given to the President and done through the DOJ, under our Constitution.

Congress can investigate through its committees, but such an investigation is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry relevant to specific pending legislation.  This committee, on its face, is not putting forth any specific legislation.  It is a purely political exercise, as evidenced by the Speaker taking the unusual step of vetoing the Republicans' choices for the committee.  It's existence not only not tied to any specific legislative purpose, its existence and the way it is conducted jeopardizes the rights of a number of J6 defendants to a fair trial.

Now I'll be honest:  You don't care about the Constitutionality of this committee and its functioning.  You want it because it's a Kangaroo Court that will "officially" endorse a narrative that, in many instatnces, will be in conflict with facts.  This is all about narrative; it's not about legitimate fact-finding.  Legitimate fact-finding is supposed to be the function of an unbiased DOJ.

I notice that no one here makes arguments as to why it IS Constitutional.  I suppose there are arguments to that effect, but no one makes them.  It's like the idea that the Hunter Biden story was "debunked" in 2020.  Debunked by who?  The MSM?  That's an assertion.  It's not a fact, not by a longshot.

[SteveRogers]

Why did you make the claim that “The January 6th commission is unconstitutional”? What did you mean by this, and do you have a legal argument to back that up?

It is not the function either House of Congress to enforce the law.  That function is given to the President and done through the DOJ, under our Constitution.

Congress can investigate through its committees, but such an investigation is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry relevant to specific pending legislation.  This committee, on its face, is not putting forth any specific legislation.  It is a purely political exercise, as evidenced by the Speaker taking the unusual step of vetoing the Republicans' choices for the committee.  It's existence not only not tied to any specific legislative purpose, its existence and the way it is conducted jeopardizes the rights of a number of J6 defendants to a fair trial.

Now I'll be honest:  You don't care about the Constitutionality of this committee and its functioning.  You want it because it's a Kangaroo Court that will "officially" endorse a narrative that, in many instatnces, will be in conflict with facts.  This is all about narrative; it's not about legitimate fact-finding.  Legitimate fact-finding is supposed to be the function of an unbiased DOJ.

I notice that no one here makes arguments as to why it IS Constitutional.  I suppose there are arguments to that effect, but no one makes them.  It's like the idea that the Hunter Biden story was "debunked" in 2020.  Debunked by who?  The MSM?  That's an assertion.  It's not a fact, not by a longshot.

Some followup questions:
1. How is trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6th so we can try to prevent it from happening again not a legitimate legislative purpose? You can argue till you’re blue in the face that you don’t like democratic congressmen on the committee because they’re mean partisans who say mean things about Trump, but how is that a legal or Constitutional argument?

2. If the January 6th committee is “unconstitutional”, do you also believe congressional committees investigating 9/11 or the JFK assassination or Benghazi were unconstitutional?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

1.  What does the Democratic Party need to do in order to win back your vote?

2.  Are you in to horror movies?

[PSOL]

How did you view the various major third parties and independent candidates that came and went? How have those views changed now? Specifically I’m talking about the Reform, Green, and Libertarian parties and such candidates as Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Gary Johnson.

[Joe Republic]

Where do you get your news?  Specific TV channels, websites, etc.

(Just trying to figure out how you've gone so far off the deep end in such a relatively short span of time.)

[ProudModerate2]

Why do you use your religion and your faith, to spread hate?
Over most of my time here, I have seen nothing but bad faith arguments from you, in your attempt to degrade people of color (mainly immigrants from southern nations) and people who view themselves to be part of the LBGT+ community.