Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Itssoeasy

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Things are getting serious. Mike Pence just unfollowed Trump on Twitter.

ABC news are saying that sources within the administration are saying that the cabinet may have resignations over this ****e. Also, Chris Christie said he tried to phone Trump to talk to him and he didn’t get through.

dogbert27

All this is actually a great distraction from the Trump tapes that now nobody will be talking about and he'll get away without repercussions

paul71

Itssoeasy wrote: »

ABC news are saying that sources within the administration are saying that the cabinet may have resignations over this ****e. Also, Chris Christie said he tried to phone Trump to talk to him and he didn’t get through.

Even with only days remaining, is it at a stage now that they must consider using Article 25 and removing Trump?

blackcard

There was a high probability that this protest would end in violence given that Trump incited supporters and led protestors to believe that the election was being stolen from himm. Reading comments from donald.win, there are unhinged supporters of Trump who are supportive of violence to further his claim. To be honest, I am only surprised that the situation in Capitol Hill was not worse. Hopefully, politicians will learn from this.

People from outside the USA would have looked to it as the leader of the Free World. Today, it looks more like a third rate anarchic country

AlfaZen

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Good old Ivanka thinks they are "patriots" apparently.

She then deleted that tweet!

Trumps are such a lovely bunch!

EltonJohn69

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Things are getting serious. Mike Pence just unfollowed Trump on Twitter.

I can’t tell if this a joke or not

Manic Moran

Rjd2 wrote: »

I doubt you'd find anyone who says it isn't.

I'll question it. The legal definition in the US (not a chargeable offense, but a description) is from the Patriot Act. It is as follows.

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

A.... Arguable. Storming the Capitol is not in itself an act dangerous to human life. Storming the capitol and shooting people is. There is one person shot thus far, but I don't believe anyone has said who, how or why.
B.... (i)I don't see it. Is anyone watching this event going to feel coerced into changing their opinion? Do the protestors expect that anyone will change their opinions or actions?(ii) Possibly. There is a difference between expressing displeasure and in attempting to coerce a change of government. (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; Seems no.
C... Yes.

I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.

dogbert27

AlfaZen wrote: »

She then deleted that tweet!

Trumps are such a lovely bunch!

She was probably advised to keep a distance from this sxxt show if she wants a future in politics

paul71

Jon Ossoff just confirmed as taking the 2nd senate seat in Georgia.

Timberrrrrrrr

This protest is the final nail in the Trump presidential coffin.

Timberrrrrrrr

Trump statement on twitter ffs

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058?s=19

Nody

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll question it. The legal definition in the US (not a chargeable offense, but a description) is from the Patriot Act. It is as follows.

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

A.... Arguable. Storming the Capitol is not in itself an act dangerous to human life. Storming the capitol and shooting people is. There is one person shot thus far, but I don't believe anyone has said who, how or why.
B.... (i)I don't see it. Is anyone watching this event going to feel coerced into changing their opinion? Do the protestors expect that anyone will change their opinions or actions?(ii) Possibly. There is a difference between expressing displeasure and in attempting to coerce a change of government.
C... Yes.

I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.

A) Protestor trying to storm the senate, she was shot through the door by police/secret service after ignoring their commands to stop. It's the twitter pic earlier with drawn weapon. This does not include the police/guards/Secret Service people who've been hurt so far and there are multiple of them reported when trying to defend the building and of course the fact they ignored police orders. So A is ticked; police officers where hurt in the action and they ignored police to disperse and broke through police barricades.
They tried to storm the senate and congress to protest the count; that would fall under armed coercion for sure. So B ticked.
C) Yes as you noted.

So yes; it ticks all three of them for terrorism. Of course hey are white so the police and armed forces will let them all run away in the fashion of Ankh Morpork night watch rather than as done in BLM protests with unmarked vehicles kidnapping citizens from the street.

Kiith

Trump records a video, and starts it all by bitching about stealing the election...then he tells people to stop the rioting.

Pathetic.

froog

"trump twitter" no longer brings up either the POTUS account or the Donald Trump account on google.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump statement on twitter ffs

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058?s=19

He just can't help himself can he? Its all about him and how unfair it is. Pathetic.

dogbert27

There can be no way Trump can be allowed to pardon himself or his family after this.

The GOP should be getting ready to feed him to the wolves as soon as they get him out of office

retalivity

That video is pathetic

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll question it. The legal definition in the US (not a chargeable offense, but a description) is from the Patriot Act. It is as follows.

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

A.... Arguable. Storming the Capitol is not in itself an act dangerous to human life. Storming the capitol and shooting people is. There is one person shot thus far, but I don't believe anyone has said who, how or why.
B.... (i)I don't see it. Is anyone watching this event going to feel coerced into changing their opinion? Do the protestors expect that anyone will change their opinions or actions?(ii) Possibly. There is a difference between expressing displeasure and in attempting to coerce a change of government. (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; Seems no.
C... Yes.

I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.

A large angry mob storms government buildings at the time the results of the next president were due to be certified.

Terrorists doing terrorist things. Call it what it is and less of the mealy mouthed explanations. This is by far the biggest threat The US has faced since the sixties. This is domestic terrorism.

~Rebel~

The American public are really starting to confuse narrative with reality.

It's descended into WWE style stuff, with no recognition that these are real people, and real crimes, and real consequences.

froog

trump is objectively the biggest loser in the history of mankind.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

If there were that many of them, probably.

It's worth noting that the Mayor of DC activated the National Guard yesterday in preparation for trouble today. To do so, he needed Trump's permission as the only Federal Guard.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

It's only a matter of time before they get there from wherever they were bring staged.

It is not going to end well for many of the protestors, I think.

Hopefully the rioters will be held in custody overnight before charges are preferred against them. The mayor's request was given the OK by the Pentagon yesterday. I was surprised at the apparent lack of visible preparation for the well-advertised expected protesters invited by Trump to protest the alleged stealing of the election from him. Just now he went live on tv saying the election had been stolen from him and then asked the protestors to go home. He's a complete and utter two-faced snake.

wandererz

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 stipulates that the vice president takes over the "powers and duties" of the presidency in the event of a president's removal, death, resignation, or inability.

Rjd2

Nody wrote: »

So yes; it ticks all three of them for terrorism. Of course hey are white so the police and armed forces will let them all run away in the fashion of Ankh Morpork night watch rather than as done in BLM protests with unmarked vehicles kidnapping citizens from the street.

Not every protester was shot in the BLM protests and the vast majority were peaceful and at times police joined in with the protesters taking the knee.

I don't know where this narrative came from that everyone who protested last Summer was mowed down by armies of racist cops.

froog

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The American public are really starting to confuse narrative with reality.

It's descended into WWE style stuff, with no recognition that these are real people, and real crimes, and real consequences.

it's idiocracy the movie unfolding.

i genuinely think the USA has only a decade or two left before completely devolving.

dogbert27

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The American public are really starting to confuse narrative with reality.

It's descended into WWE style stuff, with no recognition that these are real people, and real crimes, and real consequences.

I'm kind of hoping Biden will sign off his swearing in speech with "Donald Trump... you're fired!"

sdanseo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.

What on earth is intimidation and coercion if it's not storming a parliament?

This unruly mob came that close to attacking members of congress in their work that it looks like the Capitol Police has had to shoot someone as a result.

If that's not intimidation.. nothing is.

irishrover99

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll question it. The legal definition in the US (not a chargeable offense, but a description) is from the Patriot Act. It is as follows.

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

A.... Arguable. Storming the Capitol is not in itself an act dangerous to human life. Storming the capitol and shooting people is. There is one person shot thus far, but I don't believe anyone has said who, how or why.
B.... (i)I don't see it. Is anyone watching this event going to feel coerced into changing their opinion? Do the protestors expect that anyone will change their opinions or actions?(ii) Possibly. There is a difference between expressing displeasure and in attempting to coerce a change of government. (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; Seems no.
C... Yes.

I am not a fan of the way Americans have turned to calling any act of violence "terrorism". This conduct is reprehensible, criminal, and self-defeating, but I don't think it matches any definition of 'terrorism'.

If they had “darker skin” and beards, they would have already been called terrorists.
Simple as that

fullstop

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump statement on twitter ffs

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058?s=19

Twitter have even had to update their tweet tagging game :rolleyes:

He should be banned immediately.

Itssoeasy

The replies under a tweet from Mike pence condemning the violence would make you fear for America. Completely delusional stuff.

Nody

Rjd2 wrote: »

Not every protester was shot in the BLM protests and the vast majority were peaceful and at times police joined in with the protesters taking the knee.

I don't know where this narrative came from that everyone who protested last Summer was mowed down by armies of racist cops.

BLM protest:

White Sunday Warriors for Trump protest:


Can you spot the difference?