ratings for Jan 6th hearings crushed by reruns of Young Sheldon ..

[Meister]

Highest rated show on TV last year was NFL Sunday Night Football, with nearly nearly 17 million viewers, followed by NFL Thursday Night Football, with around 13.4 million viewers.

The first hearing got 19 - 20 million, alright for CSpan....

Something that you're looking for in a BIG EVENT is Super Bowl LVI averages audience of 112.3 million viewers, is most-watched show in five years.

Super Bowl Ratings History (1967-present)

Super Bowl ratings and viewership dating back to the first game in 1967, including adults 18-49, streaming and Spanish-langauge figures.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

You are thinking these hearings are a big event, right? I mean, it isn't a weekly program.

 

[lantern2814]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that is not what was asked of you.
However, you did answer a question that was NOT asked.

You simply did not watch that which you wish to offer the forum an informed opinion on.

Clue: Informed opinions don't work that way. An opinion that is not grounded in the minimal amount of time or due diligence to investigate, experience, or examine.....ain't an opinion. It is a keyboard enema.
I think you know that.

We are disappointed, poster Meister.
If one has an opinion one should strive to make it a quality, informed, knowledgeable opinion.
Otherwise, it ain't really an opinion. It is screechy venting by someone who is unhappy with his lot in life. It is only some kind of undisciplined 'release'.

That doesn't necessarily apply to you personally. It could though, probably.....apply to your avatar.

If you wish to express an opinion then make it one that represents your intelligence, diligence, and sense of responsibility.

Otherwise just drink. Or get a cat. Or go wash your car.

Since you form your “opinion” by listening to one side and one side only, your “opinion” is not remotely an informed one. Screeching by a whiny Dem upset that after 6+ years of trying, you’ve gotten exactly zero on any charge you’ve leveled against Trump.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Dude, you're delusional. Talk your crap all you want, I will not waste my time watching something that is a one sided event."

It is not my intention to discombobulate you.

Rather, here's the gig: : You come onto this venue and express an opinion on a current matter much in the news, the Hearings.
But then you promptly admit you haven't watched or listened to what you say you know so much about.
In short.... and this is on you, not me......but in short, you cannot know what you are talking about if you refuse to learn about what you want to talk about.

I'm mildly sure you know that. One should not assertively offer one's opinion on something one knows nothing about.... Or hell, has made no effort to learn anything about.

It makes you look....or rather, makes your avatar look.......well, like a very poor student.
Like the guy who comes into the DewDropInn and spouts off his opinion......that everybody knows is based on zero knowledge.
So all the regulars looks down into their pint, or up at the ceiling....waiting.
Waiting for the empty-drum to quiet down so they can go back to talking about stuff THEY know something about.

Good luck. And I hope the simile ain't too obvious

 

[Chillicothe]

Since you form your “opinion” by listening to one side and one side only, your “opinion” is not remotely an informed one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, not quite.
Here, lemme mansplain it to you good poster 'lantern'.

The " one side only" aspect yesterday was the Republican side.
You would know that if you had invested the time and effort to watch and listen to the 2nd Committee hearing.
It was Republican staffers for Trump, for his campaign, for the White House. His lawyers, campaign lawyers, White House lawyers. All Republican.

Importantly we heard from Republican Bill Barr, (Trump's claims of vote fraud "were bullshit"). Republican expert on elections and election law, Benjamin Ginsburg (Trump's claims of voter fraud had zero chance of being right). We heard from the DOJ's AG in Atlanta who had been appointed by Trump, who said they investigated the fraud conspiracy theories and found them without merit. We heard from the only Republican on the Philadelphia city council and whose job it was to oversee the election, Al Schmidt ("There were NOT 8,000 dead people who voted in Pennsylvania. There wasn't even 8.")

Virtually ALL witnesses were Republicans....all under oath.....who testified to what they saw, heard, and knew. Under oath, with the penalty of perjury.

And yet we have posters who come on here and say "it was all one sided"........"only one side got to testify".
Well, yesterday, it was the Trump side. His people. People he had personally hired, or appointed, or who reported to him.

I would urge the poster "lantern" to sit down in front of his screen and watch the YouTubers of both hearings....last weeks' and yesterdays'.

Then, come back to the forum members here with a more informed view of what actually was said or depicted.
Do it for one's credibility.
Do it for one's gravitas.

 

[lantern2814]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, not quite.
Here, lemme mansplain it to you good poster 'lantern'.

The " one side only" aspect yesterday was the Republican side.
You would know that if you had invested the time and effort to watch and listen to the 2nd Committee hearing.
It was Republican staffers for Trump, for his campaign, for the White House. His lawyers, campaign lawyers, White House lawyers. All Republican.

Importantly we heard from Republican Bill Barr, (Trump's claims of vote fraud "were bullshit"). Republican expert on elections and election law, Benjamin Ginsburg (Trump's claims of voter fraud had zero chance of being right). We heard from the DOJ's AG in Atlanta who had been appointed by Trump, who said they investigated the fraud conspiracy theories and found them without merit. We heard from the only Republican on the Philadelphia city council and whose job it was to oversee the election, Al Schmidt ("There were NOT 8,000 dead people who voted in Pennsylvania. There wasn't even 8.")

Virtually ALL witnesses were Republicans....all under oath.....who testified to what they saw, heard, and knew. Under oath, with the penalty of perjury.

And yet we have posters who come on here and say "it was all one sided"........"only one side got to testify".
Well, yesterday, it was the Trump side. His people. People he had personally hired, or appointed, or who reported to him.

I would urge the poster "lantern" to sit down in front of his screen and watch the YouTubers of both hearings....last weeks' and yesterdays'.

Then, come back to the forum members here with a more informed view of what actually was said or depicted.
Do it for one's credibility.
Do it for one's gravitas.

I suggest you **** off. Your “view” is uninformed as you only listened to the side you wanted to hear. No cross examination allowed. You cant “mansplain” anything you moron. That requires being a man. You have no credibility. Using only edited responses and claiming them true. Not watching your clown show. Postponed upon imminent cancellation.

 

[lantern2814]

the guy who comes into the DewDropInn and spouts off his opinion......that everybody knows is based on zero knowledge.

Perfectly describes you. Of course, a toddler has more knowledge than you do.

 

[Chillicothe]

Democrats just can't seem to grasp that with inflation at 8% and climbing and with gas prices at historic highs, most people don't give a hoot about the January 6 committee. Nobody where I work has been watching it.

Poster mikegriffith seemingly doesn't grasp that these hearings are about accountability.
About understanding enough so to prevent another January 6th tragedy happening again to America.
Bad juju happened. Who did it?

Sure Americans are concerned over $5 gas, and sure the memory of January 6th's dangers has faded ....like the memories of the many tragedies of 9/11 are less than they once were.

But these hearings are intended to uncover all the machinations that led to January 6th; what actually happened that day; the cover up afterwards. And to identify and name the names of the people most responsible.

ALL of that is worthwhile. All of that we Americans...even those watching Sheldon and HoneyBooBoo re-runs.....need to know so that the debacle can be prevented in the future.

Golly, I hope I am clear on that.

 

[Chillicothe]

"I suggest you **** off."

Poster 'lantern' your oft-displayed education level and articulate use of our English language is fairly predictable.
I wish it wasn't so.
But here, on this venue, we hafta work with what we got.
And sometimes, that ain't very much.

Nonetheless, and I don't intend for that to sound pejorative towards good poster 'lantern'.......but I would sincerely urge him, and others like him on this gossipboard, to actually watch the hearings before opining that they know all about them.

Opining about something one has not experienced, studied, investigated, or made any effort to learn more about does not lend confidence towards one's opinion. In fact, it does just the opposite. It makes the opiner appear as an uninformed 'empty drum'.

I wish it wasn't so. I wish more posters here would do a little more due diligence to lean about that which they so assertively claim they know.

It's sad really.

 

[lantern2814]

Poster 'lantern' your oft-displayed education level and articulate use of our English language is fairly predictable.
I wish it wasn't so.
But here, on this venue, we hafta work with what we got.
And sometimes, that ain't very much.

Nonetheless, and I don't intend for that to sound pejorative towards good poster 'lantern'.......but I would sincerely urge him, and others like him on this gossipboard, to actually watch the hearings before opining that they know all about them.

Opining about something one has not experienced, studied, investigated, or made any effort to learn more about does not lend confidence towards one's opinion. In fact, it does just the opposite. It makes the opiner appear as an uninformed 'empty drum'.

I wish it wasn't so. I wish more posters here would do a little more due diligence to lean about that which they so assertively claim they know.

It's sad really.

As if I care what a know nothing like you thinks. It is sad that you just regurgitate whatever talking points your Dim masters give you and then insult anybody who dares debunk you. If you wish to watch a one sided clown show that simply tells you what you want to hear, to the exclusion of all else, that just shows you have no intention of hearing anything from the other side. Making you the “uninformed empty drum”. Sad, but true.

 

[Chillicothe]

just shows you have no intention of hearing anything from the other side.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

'anything from the other side" ???

Ooops!! My bad.
I thought my avatar was clear on that, good poster lantern.

We were confident that acknowledging that it was virtually ALL Republicans who testified on Monday indicated our receptivity to hearing "the other side".
Not only were they 'Republicans'......they were 'uber'-Republicans. Attorneys who worked with Trump, with the campaign, within the White House. Hell, one was the Republican former Attorney General hand selected by Don Trump (Bill Barr). One was a Republican expert on elections and election law (Benjamin Ginsburg). One was the actual 'campaign manager' for Don Trump (Bill Stempien).

Now, it is true there were other Republicans that were asked to come in and share their "other side perspective"....... Meadows, Navarro, Jim Jordan, Banks, et al.
But they declined.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both are material witnesses in the investigation:
Jim Jordan is obvious...

Jim Banks was actively undermining the committee trying to get information. and committed fraud...

Liz Cheney calls out Jim Banks for falsely signing letter as the ranking member of January 6 committee

GOP Rep. Jim Banks lamented on the House floor that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prevented him from serving on the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol on Thursday.

edition.cnn.com

GOP Rep. Tried to Con Cabinet Officials Into Thinking He Was on Jan. 6 Committee

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) sent letters to Cabinet agencies as "Ranking Member" of the Jan. 6 committee, even though he's not on it.

www.rollingstone.com

Anyway McCarthy was given the opportunity at the start and he rejected thinking that he could block everyone from serving... The committee got two republicans who love their country over their party and wanted the truth... This is what happens when you don't want to participate... Trying to blame others for a massive misstep is pointless at this time...

Are you really this stupid????


There's no "investigation".....it's the corrupt attempt sink the chance that the candidate the totalitarian.....your party.....fears more than any in history....Trump.....will not run again.

Any violence Jan 6 was by Democrat agents.

Demorcrat elected officials told their voters to commit arson, assaults, domestic terrorism for a year before the stolen election.

Democrats committed over 12 thousand such riots at their party's behest.

And during the show trial, they forbid any defense that would have refuted their lies.

Then Democrat DAs, Judges and prosecutors declined to punish them.

Jan 6 is the pretense designed to hide the above.

They simply copied earlier totalitrians....Nazis- Reichstag Fire and Bolshevik's Moscow Show Trials.


And you've been tasked with pretending to belive any of their lies.....and you answered "Yes, Sir!!!!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats just can't seem to grasp that with inflation at 8% and climbing and with gas prices at historic highs, most people don't give a hoot about the January 6 committee. Nobody where I work has been watching it.

The inflation rate in Trump's last year....1.4%

US Inflation Rate by Year: 1929-2023​

The U.S. inflation rate by year is the percentage of change in prices from one year to the next. It responds to business cycle phases and interest rates.

www.thebalance.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both are material witnesses in the investigation:
Jim Jordan is obvious...

Jim Banks was actively undermining the committee trying to get information. and committed fraud...

Liz Cheney calls out Jim Banks for falsely signing letter as the ranking member of January 6 committee

GOP Rep. Jim Banks lamented on the House floor that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prevented him from serving on the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol on Thursday.

edition.cnn.com

GOP Rep. Tried to Con Cabinet Officials Into Thinking He Was on Jan. 6 Committee

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) sent letters to Cabinet agencies as "Ranking Member" of the Jan. 6 committee, even though he's not on it.

www.rollingstone.com

Anyway McCarthy was given the opportunity at the start and he rejected thinking that he could block everyone from serving... The committee got two republicans who love their country over their party and wanted the truth... This is what happens when you don't want to participate... Trying to blame others for a massive misstep is pointless at this time...

 

[Chillicothe]

I saw the "J6 Rigged" meme by Political Chic in post #93.

OK, that signals her current belief. We get that.

However, it also begs the question: Did Political Chic watch the two hearings so far?

The first hearing laid out what they are going to tell us in the next 5 hearings.

The second hearing, just this past Monday, showed us how everybody around Don Trump (except Rudy & cohorts) told Don Trump that the election was not stolen. He lost. No fraud was found that was sufficient to change the results in any election. In fact, they told him his statements about a 'stolen election' were 'bullshit', or similar.

So, if Political Chic wishes to convey that the hearings are "Rigged"....well, how would she know?
If she doesn't have the degree of responsibility to watch and determine if what she thinks is right is actually right, well, how can anyone have confidence in an opinion that hasn't been supported by actual effort to learn?

 

[dudmuck]

Are you really this stupid????


There's no "investigation".....it's the corrupt attempt sink the chance that the candidate the totalitarian.....your party.....fears more than any in history....Trump.....will not run again.

Any violence Jan 6 was by Democrat agents.

Demorcrat elected officials told their voters to commit arson, assaults, domestic terrorism for a year before the stolen election.

Democrats committed over 12 thousand such riots at their party's behest.

And during the show trial, they forbid any defense that would have refuted their lies.

Then Democrat DAs, Judges and prosecutors declined to punish them.

Jan 6 is the pretense designed to hide the above.

They simply copied earlier totalitrians....Nazis- Reichstag Fire and Bolshevik's Moscow Show Trials.


And you've been tasked with pretending to belive any of their lies.....and you answered "Yes, Sir!!!!"

All those Trump supports at the capitol then did a shit job of kicking those democrats asses.

 

[Meister]

It is not my intention to discombobulate you.

Rather, here's the gig: : You come onto this venue and express an opinion on a current matter much in the news, the Hearings.
But then you promptly admit you haven't watched or listened to what you say you know so much about.
In short.... and this is on you, not me......but in short, you cannot know what you are talking about if you refuse to learn about what you want to talk about.

I'm mildly sure you know that. One should not assertively offer one's opinion on something one knows nothing about.... Or hell, has made no effort to learn anything about.

It makes you look....or rather, makes your avatar look.......well, like a very poor student.
Like the guy who comes into the DewDropInn and spouts off his opinion......that everybody knows is based on zero knowledge.
So all the regulars looks down into their pint, or up at the ceiling....waiting.
Waiting for the empty-drum to quiet down so they can go back to talking about stuff THEY know something about.

Good luck. And I hope the simile ain't too obvious

I gave you my opinion, because you don't like my opinion does not mean you get to cancel me
By the way.....what happened to the hearings that were supposed to be televised today, Scooter?
It seems more people believe what I do, and not the bullshit you spew.
good grief

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The second hearing, just this past Monday, showed us how everybody around Don Trump (except Rudy & cohorts) told Don Trump that the election was not stolen. He lost. No fraud was found that was sufficient to change the results in any election. In fact, they told him his statements about a 'stolen election' were 'bullshit', or similar.

Okay, so tell me what law was broken. If we're going to have congressional investigations based on what somebody said, when does the DumBama investigations start? You know, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor? His health plan will save families $2,500 a year? All plans will be quality plans that are affordable to everybody? That sales bullshit set this country an additional trillion in the hole.

 

[Meister]

I saw the "J6 Rigged" meme by Political Chic in post #93.

OK, that signals her current belief. We get that.

However, it also begs the question: Did Political Chic watch the two hearings so far?

The first hearing laid out what they are going to tell us in the next 5 hearings.

The second hearing, just this past Monday, showed us how everybody around Don Trump (except Rudy & cohorts) told Don Trump that the election was not stolen. He lost. No fraud was found that was sufficient to change the results in any election. In fact, they told him his statements about a 'stolen election' were 'bullshit', or similar.

So, if Political Chic wishes to convey that the hearings are "Rigged"....well, how would she know?
If she doesn't have the degree of responsibility to watch and determine if what she thinks is right is actually right, well, how can anyone have confidence in an opinion that hasn't been supported by actual effort to learn?

Chances are with the measly numbers that the hearings garnered, PC and most of America didn't give a crap about those hearings, ChillyWilly.
Hearing number 1.....around 20 million viewers = weak
Hearing number 2...around 10 million viewers = pathetic
Hearing number 3....Cancelled =

 

[Chillicothe]

"I gave you my opinion, because you don't like my opinion does not mean you get to cancel me"

The poster Meister is mistaken. It is not my intention to 'cancel' him in any way. Or cancel anybody.
I will though assert that his opinion about the hearings.....without him watching any part of them......is a silly, frivolous opinion that reflets poorly on his avatar's judgment and ability.

Everybody knows.....nobody needs me to tell 'em.....but an opinion about something you know nothing about ain't really an 'opinion'. It is just a verbal enema by someone who is disgruntled over one thing or another and feels the only way to get a 'release' for his feelings is to spout off about one thing or another...whether they know anything about it or not.

I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. Rather, as merely articulating a standard that all intelligent adult conversation tries to adhere to. And a standard that most adult based political discussions try to adhere to.

If one knows nothing about an issue, and tries hard NOT to learn about it.....well, opining about it does not reflect well on the opiner.

Everybody knows that.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Okay, so tell me what law was broken."

How would I know, Ray from Cleveland?
I ain't a lawyer. I ain't a Congressional staffer or investigator. The Committee does not call me.

If a crime has been committed by these people who engineered the 'stolen election' scam, or, the violent attack on the Capitol....well, I sure the hell hope it comes out and that the Committee brings solid credible evidence. Evidence of sufficient quality to bring before a jury.
We'll see. I don't know what they have. But I will watch all of the hearings....if not in real time, then I'll watch on YouTube.

I believe a lot of bad juju happened in the machinations leading to January 6th. I believe bad juju happened on the 6th. And I think any effort to cover it up, deflect, and minimize it is.....is corrupt. 'Corrupt' may not be a statute crime, I don't know, but we all know corruption when we see it. And if it occurred it need be publicly exposed. And the perpetrators of it held accountable.

You know, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?

You know....Ray from Cleveland, do this: If you want to discuss the Affordable Care Act and the communications surrounding it, well, mein freund, start you own thread about it. Be a responsible adult-like OP. And put your name on the thread topic and then monitor and contribute to that.

Trying to do a "Look, Squirrel" on a thread about January 6th, is insincere and wrongheaded. At best.

 

[Meister]

The poster Meister is mistaken. It is not my intention to 'cancel' him in any way. Or cancel anybody.
I will though assert that his opinion about the hearings.....without him watching any part of them......is a silly, frivolous opinion that reflets poorly on his avatar's judgment and ability.

Everybody knows.....nobody needs me to tell 'em.....but an opinion about something you know nothing about ain't really an 'opinion'. It is just a verbal enema by someone who is disgruntled over one thing or another and feels the only way to get a 'release' for his feelings is to spout off about one thing or another...whether they know anything about it or not.

I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. Rather, as merely articulating a standard that all intelligent adult conversation tries to adhere to. And a standard that most adult based political discussions try to adhere to.

If one knows nothing about an issue, and tries hard NOT to learn about it.....well, opining about it does not reflect well on the opiner.

Everybody knows that.
-----------------------------------------------------


How would I know, Ray from Cleveland?
I ain't a lawyer. I ain't a Congressional staffer or investigator. The Committee does not call me.

If a crime has been committed by these people who engineered the 'stolen election' scam, or, the violent attack on the Capitol....well, I sure the hell hope it comes out and that the Committee brings solid credible evidence. Evidence of sufficient quality to bring before a jury.
We'll see. I don't know what they have. But I will watch all of the hearings....if not in real time, then I'll watch on YouTube.

I believe a lot of bad juju happened in the machinations leading to January 6th. I believe bad juju happened on the 6th. And I think any effort to cover it up, deflect, and minimize it is.....is corrupt. 'Corrupt' may not be a statute crime, I don't know, but we all know corruption when we see it. And if it occurred it need be publicly exposed. And the perpetrators of it held accountable.


You know....Ray from Cleveland, do this: If you want to discuss the Affordable Care Act and the communications surrounding it, well, mein freund, start you own thread about it. Be a responsible adult-like OP. And put your name on the thread topic and then monitor and contribute to that.

Trying to do a "Look, Squirrel" on a thread about January 6th, is insincere and wrongheaded. At best.

You really do play obtuse quite well, poster ChilliWilly.
How do you learn something when you're just being spoon fed from one side?
Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question.
Idiot's got to idiot, I suppose.