They don’t look like he did them.
They don’t look like he did them.
He got Marcus Rashford's team in.
Maybe after 4 years stoking tension which caused a coup attempt, there should be *some* consequences? Private companies can do as they please of course.Originally Posted by Pepe
I think people misunderstand 'freedom of speech'. He has freedom of speech, Twitter decided having him exercise it on their platform was not what they wanted, so they took him off it. He can continue to exercise freedom of speech on whatever platforms will hear him. The state isn't putting him behind bars for his speech. That would be when freedom of speech was compromised.
Twitter was claimed to be a 'public space' when he was blocking people from viewing his content, so it's hard to see how this doesn't end up with them accepting publisher status (and all of its liabilities). It's a decent first test of the corporate state.
I blocked him in 2017 or so as it's all so boring. I'm sure I've missed some crafty quote tweet zingers from British comedy writers as a result but I'll survive.
That's another issue. What about the ecosystem that lives in his replies? What about their mental health?
However decentralised, the goals were taken to be the goals of the umbrella organisation[s] to and through which all of the institutional and financial support flowed (which are mental/revolutionary). Plus muh property/rule of law. They are directly comparable, and you can only avoid it if you diminish one and/or boost the other.
Idk how you're meant to "re-enfranchise" a bunch of racist morons who will actively and vociferously work to make their own lives worse provided it ensures nothing improves for a single person they deem unworthy.
Apart from being a racist moron yourself, ala Trump, obviously.
The biggest thing I take away from Trump's presidency is how it's completely changed his brand. I used to see him as a retarded rich guy who built golf courses, talked at dinners and got deals done. As a politician, he's been an agitated, cantankerous shit who'll take everyone down with him.
They disenfranchise[d] themselves with their self-destructive behaviour.
Works both ways.
Dr Ibram Kendi.
Dr Henry Rogers, in fact
I was just reading that. You can't go mixing East and Southern African words for your gimmick name when you've got no connection to either.
There'll always be mong extremists on both sides. America's problem is the mong racist white people make up a big enough proportion of the population that they can elect their "God Emperor" as president.
And the mong racist white people on the other side make up a big enough proportion that they can take over school systems, rip them apart, and get applauded for it. See NY system, San Diego system, UC Berkeley, etc., etc. That shit will have a much larger (negative) effect than anything Trump did.
Well, apparently they can't, actually. @RL
Thought this was quite interesting, not sure about the background to the writer etc though.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...apitol-assault
Has the Trump been taken out yet?
Yes. A new lad takes over on the 20th.
Might be the first and only time Biden gets called a lad.
They have to terminate Trump otherwise he gets to run again correct?
I'm not sure he'd get the nomination now, they would find some mechanism to block him. He could run as a third party and ensure the Democrat wins, I guess.
The Patriot Party.
I want to see trump with a pistol in his hand, waving it around in the presidential office refusing to leave. Chained to the radiator and everything. It seems like he has now gone soft and threw in the towel.
Apparently (because who really knows), he's sitting in the White House stewing and getting angrier and angrier. I suspect he'll end up trundling off and trying to start his own social media network (which he should call "Trumpet", obviously), but there's time left for one last twist I suppose.
What’s all the guff about nukes? Surely multiple people should have to sign off on that, though it’s a mental enough system that it wouldn’t surprise me.
He should at least try to get his hands on one of their emergency broadcast systems. Harold would.
I agree. Even if he theoretically could give a unilateral order, I don't think he has enough cachet now that nobody would run interference.
The only thing I could see happening now is impeachment. Which could be important, as if it passed the house and the senate, Trump wouldn't be legally allowed to run again.
"This is the nuclear emergency broadcast system. The lying Democrats stole this election, and we have to fight!!!! My rallies had so many more people! Sad!!!"
Sending out the first batch with a blatant alias like 'The Rightful President', and then moving to things like 'Mohammed the Patriot' as they lock him out of various frequencies.
It's not entirely clear that he can just launch a nuclear strike for a laugh (or that it would have to be done), but making a big deal of it at this stage does reveal that much of the OUTRAGE surrounding him has been a performative/signalling show. If you are genuinely capable of convincing yourself that he might nuke somebody as a sign-off then you're probably not of sound enough mind yourself to be legislating on the matter. And that's before you get to the whole circumventing the chain of command issue. The sacred chain of command, crucial to the functioning of democracy.
Yeah, I heard all that shit and thought the same. He can't just type in 'Georgia' and then press his big red button and wipe out however many thousand square miles. Someone, somewhere will have an override and go "fuck that, Donald".
All been good entertainment though. Biden has an open goal for being remebered as a bit of an A* prez, simply because he's not Trump. Just needs to calm everyone down and keep the child abuse to a minimum.
Depends on which Georgia he nukes. Putin might back him.
and not die.
To be a top, top President he needs to spend the four years scheming to get someone better than Kamala Harris in line to do the following eight, and then stand aside and cruise into the everyone's favourite grandpa spot vacated by John McCain.
The President doesn't need the consent of Congress to use nuclear weapons, is that still the case or have they closed that particular loophole?
Yeah, I agree fully with this. The "BUT HE HAS THE NUCLEAR CODES" is a tired rhetoric. Fox News rolled it out for Obama after he used a selfie-stick in the Oval Office. It's absolutely performative, unless we live in the universe described by Mellin above where he gets a big red button and a crosshair (and even then I reckon he'd need someone's help), and even then. It's quite offensive in its silliness, actually.
I presume it takes more than one person to launch a nuke, even if that person is the President. It must take a whole unit to ready the fucker, tell it where it's going and atleast a couple of people to "press the button". I thought it took keys being turned at the same time in different places.
They've spent decades building the mystique. This is the natural consequence.
The Democratic Party just want to take him out of the picture for 2024, which is smart. That and, rightly, more than a few of them probably feel that he tried to incite violence against them personally and want to make him pay for that. This is definitely where the anger from the Republican side is coming from. Senators and Congressmen being locked in their offices for 3-5 hours, hearing reports of gunfire, and being told not to open the door for anyone probably wouldn't leave them in a very friendly state of mind. I think we can't ignore the fact that it just got very personal for a lot of people.
I agree with you, but I think that’s actually the more powerful narrative to be pushing (i.e., demonstrating that the crowd wanted the blood of anyone who doesn’t agree with Trump, Democrat or Republican). The nuclear code stuff just feels like they’re pandering to win the court of public opinion (which, outside of the same MAGA idiots who supported the storming, they largely have - so what’s the point?).
To be honest, if anyone should be crowing the personal violence narrative from the rooftops, it should be Pence. Him being on the fence about impeachment and/or invoking the 25th Amendment, when the crowd was explicitly chanting about his death and Trump’s personal lawyer said he should be put to a firing squad (you what?), boggles the mind.
All reports suggest that Pence is absolutely furious, but I presume he's trying to walk the delicate line between wanting to lash out and prepping for a 2024 Presidential run.
Obviously a lot can change between then and now, but he's got to be the strongest candidate they have, and he won't want to risk messing that up. It's still crazy that over half the House Republicans voted to throw out the election results. Things aren't normal there.
I've reminded a few people of this already. Trump is a psychopath, but 138 republicans also voted to block the results. Some claim they did it to avoid be targeted by Trumps Clown Army, but who knows. I think this is more institutional than people think.
I've reminded a few people of this already. Trump is a psychopath, but 138 republicans also voted to block the results. Some claim they did it to avoid be targeted by Trumps Clown Army, but who knows. I think this is more institutional than people think.
Yes, please. But only if he calls his town hall meetings "My two cents' with Mike Pence."
You've clearly learned that from movies!
The whole situation is so combative. Does anyone have any time left to govern and actually do something for the betterment of citizens rather than play the political stabbing game?
It's hard to believe there was ever a time in history when Nixon was pardoned so the country could just move on from it all. "It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
I just can't fathom anyone doing something like that today, the gap is that wide and hatred that strong.
As an extremely casual outside observer politics in the US seems to have been one side trying to thwart/undo the previous doings of the other side for much of my lifetime [to almost the exclusion of everything else - I appreciate this is, to an extent, true in all systems]. Certainly the last 20 years. They became hostages to the margins years ago (mostly the evangelical mob or gun nuts) and their national politics seems to reflect that (even though polling often suggests a plurality of Americans want better healthcare, better gun control and all the things us outsiders think are reasonably normal).
I was having this discussion the other day and came to the conclusion that they need a Tony Blair type figure to [properly] try an win the middle/people from the other side [to the extent that they basically torch a lot of their alleged base] and/or some sort of constitutional 'crisis' to flip standard party divisions on their head somewhat (a la Brexit in the UK). Maybe if Trump's mob start an actual war with their guns then the second amendment could become that issue, but I doubt even full scale conflict between the followers of Trump and the US Army would be enough to shift that particular object. There would always be the argument that this is exactly the sort of thing the second amendment was designed to protect against.
The thing that gun nuts never really address is that any sort of armed conflict (muh militia!) between them and the US army would end with them smeared thinly across whichever state they decided to make their stand in. It's what renders that particular bit of their rhetoric completely empty, they would lose hard and (until last week) it seemed obvious that they knew it and would therefore never actually start anything.
Yeah, I've thought that before.
"ah need mah assault rahfle to protec' mah land from the GOVERNMENT"
Mate they've got tanks and gunships and stuff, you know that right?
Reply With Quote
