I didn't know too much about this guy but after watching him work for a while I totally dig his style.
Setting him up for perjury is exactly what it looks like he's doing. Skillful manoeuvre of questioning, recalling past responses to prevent mental gymnastics in current responses, if Cruz was an Inquisitor then Hawley would be his Interrogator.
Serious question: wtf is the point of a hearing? All I see are senators on both sides grandstanding and listening to themselves talk to record+replay for their nightly rubs, but does it actually create policy change?
We need to set the bar much higher than asking questions we like at a hearing. By this metric, Even Lindsey Graham can pretend to be a good guy. If we immediately suck someone’s dick because they asked questions, thats what they’ll learn to do and they’ll never do anything else (see basically anyone in congress right now). These hearings never go anywhere, so why should I care that some guy asked some good questions. If nobody is actually doing anything about the problem, get them out. The bar for our support should be related to tangible action. Ex: the introduce legislation that we support and try to get votes for it. If it fails it fails, but that should be the lowest bar we set for supporting someone.
Maybe they have, but I think the comment still applies. We immediately shout from the rooftops about this stuff, when it should be expected as an everyday occurrence of everyone. This is why we’ve had Lyndsey Graham 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. How many versions are we going to have to have before people realize all he does is try to get 15 seconds on camera? That’s just one example that hopefully everyone can relate to.
Not saying we shouldn’t support asking tough questions, but that alone is not a reason to “remember” someone. So perhaps said another way, the messaging of our community should be much stronger and more focused on tangible action as what we support. We’ve had too much tick tock, hammer drop, etc bullshit.
Oh yea man. He was asking the glorious ACB hypotheticals about the Biden laptop case, sort of a cheeky way to bypass the media and just let it all out there.
Then ACB answer she doesn't deal in hypotheticals, he said, good answer, but this will be coming for your decision soon.
Imagine that a police officer watches someone commit murder. He then proceeds to yell at the murderer and ask a bunch of obvious questions. Then, he walks off. Is he a good police officer?
Enough with the hearings and strongly worded letters already! Time to pass legislation to fix the problem by revoking their protection under 230 or break up the Big Tech monopolies.
Looks to me like he was setting up cuckburger for perjury.
I didn't know too much about this guy but after watching him work for a while I totally dig his style.
Setting him up for perjury is exactly what it looks like he's doing. Skillful manoeuvre of questioning, recalling past responses to prevent mental gymnastics in current responses, if Cruz was an Inquisitor then Hawley would be his Interrogator.
He questions Zuckerberg here at 2:57:40 Time stamped link https://youtu.be/p7TkU-EWlik?t=10660
Then what? No consequences for big tech ever happen.
When Trump is re-elected, watch him drop the hammer on all of them.
LOLOL
Serious question: wtf is the point of a hearing? All I see are senators on both sides grandstanding and listening to themselves talk to record+replay for their nightly rubs, but does it actually create policy change?
Both Hawley and Cruz have written good legislation, but there's so much swamp, that it's hard to get anything passed
We need to set the bar much higher than asking questions we like at a hearing. By this metric, Even Lindsey Graham can pretend to be a good guy. If we immediately suck someone’s dick because they asked questions, thats what they’ll learn to do and they’ll never do anything else (see basically anyone in congress right now). These hearings never go anywhere, so why should I care that some guy asked some good questions. If nobody is actually doing anything about the problem, get them out. The bar for our support should be related to tangible action. Ex: the introduce legislation that we support and try to get votes for it. If it fails it fails, but that should be the lowest bar we set for supporting someone.
AFAIK Hawley and Cruz have been on that track for a while.
Maybe they have, but I think the comment still applies. We immediately shout from the rooftops about this stuff, when it should be expected as an everyday occurrence of everyone. This is why we’ve had Lyndsey Graham 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. How many versions are we going to have to have before people realize all he does is try to get 15 seconds on camera? That’s just one example that hopefully everyone can relate to.
Not saying we shouldn’t support asking tough questions, but that alone is not a reason to “remember” someone. So perhaps said another way, the messaging of our community should be much stronger and more focused on tangible action as what we support. We’ve had too much tick tock, hammer drop, etc bullshit.
You speak true. I'd vote for you but even Jorgensen knows where that vote would end up.
Lol so true
Hawley 2024
Oh yea man. He was asking the glorious ACB hypotheticals about the Biden laptop case, sort of a cheeky way to bypass the media and just let it all out there.
Then ACB answer she doesn't deal in hypotheticals, he said, good answer, but this will be coming for your decision soon.
Will definitely remember this guy.
Imagine that a police officer watches someone commit murder. He then proceeds to yell at the murderer and ask a bunch of obvious questions. Then, he walks off. Is he a good police officer?
Hawley is the next great one. I think one day we’ll be on hawley.win
Enough with the hearings and strongly worded letters already! Time to pass legislation to fix the problem by revoking their protection under 230 or break up the Big Tech monopolies.