Trump trolling the Democrats once again by blocking Fauci from testifying in upcoming hearing

hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Trump has decided that it is ok for the Republican controlled Senate to question Fauci, but not the House whose job it is to have oversight. Dear Leader wasted how many hours of this poor guys time and now has the balls to say Fauci's time is too important to waste in the House hearing so he had it blocked. He sure learned his lesson on obstructing congress well.



https://apnews.com/2d69b9e3a534683393d61d82e923f093
WASHINGTON (AP) — A spokesman for a key House panel said Friday that the White House has blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci from testifying next week at a hearing on the coronavirus outbreak.

House Appropriations Committee spokesman Evan Hollander said the panel sought Fauci — the highly respected director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — as a witness for a subcommittee hearing on the government’s response to the pandemic, but was denied. Hollander said the panel was informed by an administration official that Fauci’s testimony was blocked by the White House.


The White House said Fauci is busy dealing with the pandemic and will appear before Congress later. In fact, Fauci is set to appear the week after next at a Senate hearing, a spokesperson for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee said. The Senate is held by Trump’s Republican allies while the House is controlled by Democrats.

“While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere. “We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time.”

Fauci is the top scientist on President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force and is no stranger to testifying before Congress. He has sometimes contradicted Trump’s optimistic misstatements about the virus and how much it is under control after claiming more than 64,000 lives in the U.S.

Fauci has warned against relaxing social distancing rules that have helped slow the spread of the virus but caused a major hit to the economy. That has earned him criticism from some of Trump’s most ardent supporters, and Trump himself has retweeted a supporter who called for Fauci’s firing.
 
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Yep. All the bluster of shining cities and thousand points of light is all a con. It's not about government for the people anymore. It's about money and how to keep getting elected to make more. I'm not talking about congressional salaries either. Mitch McConnell and others are making millions. That is why they will do anything to keep their job in Washington, even if it is detrimental to the country. Even if it means protecting a fool of a president that they know is doing irreparable harm to the country.

It will take generations to undo the damage this administration and Republicans in Congress have done. What a sad example these people are to the party of Lincoln. Trump will go down in history as the most inept, corrupt and incompetent president.

The good news for Trump supporters is they will never know. They will have to read a book to find out.
 
Last edited:
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
This hearing with Rick Bright is really interesting when they allow him some time to talk he is pretty panicked about the response the government has had, and how messed up it is that he was fired by Trump. It is really telling how unprepared the congress was for this hearing, the Democrats are not picking at the sore this guy is talking about and the Republicans are talking about Trump's drug therapies.

 
downhill21

downhill21

Well-Known Member
trowertripper said:
i donr blame trump anymore i blame his supporters and the wimpy sycophants in the US Senate. so much for the USA and its role in the world, its constitutional integrity and its future. oh well.
Click to expand...
It’s true, that our role & power in the world is diminished. One can hate globalization, but I would rather havethe world as my customer, than just my fellow citizens. China & Russia are delighted to take our seat at the table.
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
downhill21 said:
It’s true, that our role & power in the world is diminished. One can hate globalization, but I would rather havethe world as my customer, than just my fellow citizens. China & Russia are delighted to take our seat at the table.
Click to expand...
Taking us down to size is the goal of many foreign countries. Russia and China the main antagonists but we have fucked over many countries and millions of their citizens over the decades. Latin America has to be scared but secretly happy.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
This hearing with Rick Bright is really interesting when they allow him some time to talk he is pretty panicked about the response the government has had, and how messed up it is that he was fired by Trump. It is really telling how unprepared the congress was for this hearing, the Democrats are not picking at the sore this guy is talking about and the Republicans are talking about Trump's drug therapies.

Click to expand...
This is just the preamble, the warm up, he'll be back later when the main event begins, right around the time the coronavirus is ravaging the red states and their congressional delegations are panicking. Around the time the demand for the documents will begin, there will be no problem with the scientist whistleblowers, they will form an archestra. I don't know if Nancy planned it this way, but it sure looks like a perfect storm is brewing for the republicans right in their own backyard with the timing of events. Ya wanna push hardest when they are at their weakest point, at a time of your choosing and that time is when the body count goes up and the hospitals are overwhelmed in the red states that got stupid and drank the Koolaid.
 
Bear420

Bear420

Well-Known Member
And they call Us Sheep, isn't that funny, the sheep are them all along. Bahhh Bahhh Sheeple People under Trump. He's took America down by ignoring what the Scientist Said. Wake up bah bah's !!!!@ Before someone who love Dies, And Trust me He don't Care.

Vote out Republican's all of them.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
CunningCanuk said:
not about government for the people anymore.
Click to expand...
That's not a commonly practiced thing. A Democracy at best is not "for all the people", and at worst it is a tool of tyranny and death. This is not an idle opinion, as the death stats are out there.

The only time a government could ever really be for "the people" would be if all participants were involved on a voluntary basis.

1589768193684.png
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
That's not a commonly practiced thing. A Democracy at best is not "for all the people", and at worst it is a tool of tyranny and death. This is not an idle opinion, as the death stats are out there.

The only time a government could ever really be for "the people" would be if all participants were involved on a voluntary basis.

View attachment 4568916
Click to expand...
snicker

Roy: "Tyranny!!!!!"


Reality: bitched at for being a buffoon in the grocery store again.
 
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
That's not a commonly practiced thing. A Democracy at best is not "for all the people", and at worst it is a tool of tyranny and death. This is not an idle opinion, as the death stats are out there.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a true democracy. It would be inefficient. You don’t live in a democracy you live in a democratic republic. The people don’t collectively make laws, they collectively choose who makes the laws. In theory these representatives would vote on their behalf with, as the representatives see it, the collective in mind. It may not be a reality but it could be possible, in theory, that government could be for all the people.

Rob Roy said:
The only time a government could ever really be for "the people" would be if all participants were involved on a voluntary basis.
Click to expand...
This is the part where you choose your representative by voting.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
CunningCanuk said:
There is no such thing as a true democracy. It would be inefficient. You don’t live in a democracy you live in a democratic republic. The people don’t collectively make laws, they collectively choose who makes the laws. In theory these representatives would vote on their behalf with, as the representatives see it, the collective in mind. It may not be a reality but it could be possible, in theory, that government could be for all the people.


This is the part where you choose your representative by voting.
Click to expand...
The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise ever devised. That's a fact, which you will not be able to refute should our discussion go there. I could offer volumes of evidence, should you try to rebut my claim with flaccid "nuh -uhs" . You won't go there though, because you know better.

Your attempt at a civics lesson is unnecessary, it's partially accurate in that it is how they proclaim that's "how government works", but in practice and result it is inaccurate. I'm not going to bother providing evidence of my claim, since it is for all but the most distressingly lost boot licker a given that government is rigged.

I will cite, possibly before you were born, I was immersed in "government studies", imagined I knew about "checks and balances" and had read most of the magical documents, "Constitution", "bill of rights", supreme court rulings and general history etc.. It's pretty much all made up horse shit and used to mentally capture people. It's worked well.

People collectively choose from a couple of carefully vetted corporate sponsored or controlled choices for most of the significant elected positions, who will make laws as they are told by the people who control them.

Let's discuss your misuse of the term "representative".

The term representative as you attempt to use it, implies a willful assignment by person A to person B to use some type of authority to make laws is that about what you're trying to say ?
 
CunningCanuk

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
I merely replied to your comment to me that “government can’t be for all of the people.” I disagree and think it can (and sometimes is). That said, I will agree with you that a government designed with good intentions can do evil things. Particularly these days as division, incompetence and partisan politics rule the day. The government itself is not your oppressor but those elected to office may use their authority to oppress. In other words, government itself is not the enemy but those elected to office can be.

You spend a lot of time debating nomenclature. Discussions with you inevitably turn to your questioning someone’s understanding of the meaning of a word. If we can all accept Webster’s definitions it will improve the discourse.

Do governments do evil things? Yes. Do governments do good things? Yes. Are they perfect? No, but the alternative is anarchy and that doesn’t work either.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
CunningCanuk said:
I disagree and think it can (and sometimes is).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply. I don't agree with it, because it's inaccurate, but it's a start.

If involuntary capture of peaceful and / or neutral people is a bad thing, (coercion) and all governments practice involuntary capture of people, meaning your individual consent to being a subject isn't a consideration, would it be safe to say that government is based in coercion? Rhetorical question. It is safe to say that, because that is EXACTLY how it occurs.

So when you proclaim that a coercion based group of people can do good things, you are saying that a gang who gained and maintains power over others without their consent, does good things. Sure that's possible, here's an example...

It's like when an avowed wife beater sometimes sobers up and takes his (virtual captive) wife out to dinner before taking her home and raping her and then pointing to that as if to say, "see he's not such a bad guy, he bought her dinner"!

When you proclaim that "anarchy doesn't work either" are you just robotically replying with a platitude ? I think you might be. What is it about situations where the status quo is a default that there are no slaves or no masters (that's what actual anarchy is) frightens you so much you make nonsensical proclamations about anarchy ?

Yes, you're right I do often seek clarity of definition when debating, it's so when I defeat you, it will be all fair and square, without the shadowy ambiguity of words a poor debater needs to retreat to. Good point though, I don't usually get very far arguing with people who are seeking to avoid examining things, instead they seek the conformity of their comfortable echo chamber reinforcing the fairy tales they've been told.

Anarchy, (I prefer the term "voluntaryism") is the ONLY thing that brings freedom, by definition an involuntary government cannot.

Can you offer your definition of anarchy and why you think it "can't work" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top