StringerBell wrote: » I'd be confident internal polling has been carried out over the week and that the vast, vast majority of GOP voters are turned off by the scenes at the Capitol building. You have a loud fringe, and in all honesty a large fringe but a fringe element they are that has been thrust into the mainstream and amplified for years. Then you have corporate America feeling the pressure and talk of funding being pulled, plenty of reason to throw the goon under the train at this stage and bar him from ever running again to boot ensuring the end of him as a viable candidate. They have a number of years to work on a message to get the party behind, mainly hey we aint the Dems will do. Mitch has always thought long term and the GOP are not in a terrible position to rebuild from, certainly better than 06.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Rep Boebert had a standoff with capitol Police at the metal detectors. Honestly, there needs to be a purge of these nutters.
aloyisious wrote: » Rep John Katko [R] let fly with both barrels at Trump tonight in his speech supporting the impeachment, referring to Trump's speech to the insurgent mob near the Capitol last Wednesday, blaming him for what happened there.
froog wrote: » on another note, qanon hasn't posted since sometime in early december. i would imagine the FBI are looking for him right now and would love to get the various people controlling that sludge pipe. shouldn't be too hard, the sites he/they post on wouldn't exactly be hugely secure.
Carfacemandog wrote: » Jim Watkins must be shi*tting his pants. And yes, the US and Philippines do have an extradition treaty.
aloyisious wrote: » Ted Cruz early on Thursday last after the Capitol insurrectionists attack on it [not him apparently] just before the reconvened Congress finally certified Biden’s victory once and for all, Cruz put out a statement declaring that even though “The attack at the Capitol was a despicable act of terrorism and a shocking assault on our democratic system,” he still had no regrets for his role in the public effort to discredit Biden’s win. “Millions of Americans who have peacefully expressed their deep concerns regarding election integrity deserve to have their voices heard. It was the right thing to do,” Cruz wrote. This was printed in the Houston Press, which describes itself as Houston's independent source of local news and culture.
StringerBell wrote: » Rafael is one of the worst politicians in the US. Almost universally disliked by all except his constituents who vote for him seemingly. What amazes me is that his act is transparent also and you would think that his subjugation of himself to trump after all he did during the primaries would be a turn off for those same constituents.
aloyisious wrote: » Seems they'll let him in if he brings his tax records to them for a looksee. I'd imagine they want to compare them to any properties he's linked with there.
Deleted User wrote: » I don't know where you get your "seems". Nichola Sturgeon said he will be treated as any other citizen and be denied if he tries to enter during the current lockdown.
robinph wrote: » Not sure that Nicola Sturgeon would be able to make that call if Trump were to fly in on the 19th as Trump is not any other citizen at that point. He could just fly into any of the US air bases if he wanted and nobody from the host country of that airbase could do anything about it. OK, so Prestwick isn't a US airbase, but event so if a foreign head of state is flying in I don't think that falls under Sturgeons power to say no. Of course come the 20th he's just a regular person, who happens to have a bunch of people with guns following him around for the rest of his life. Then Sturgeon can possibly make an argument over if he should be there or not.
Water John wrote: » If he's impeached, in the future he won't have a protection detail.
seamus wrote: » It would be a major diplomatic incident, obviously. But the chances of the UK arresting secret service agents or USAF pilots for following Trump's orders are non-existent. So in effect Trump can go to Scotland on the 19th if he wishes and there's nothing anyone can do about it but make noise.
Quin_Dub wrote: » No - They don't like him either , but there's an (R) beside his name on the ballot which is really all they need to see. The oft repeated Al Franken quote is apt here. Q - "Why do People take an instant dislike to Ted Cruz?" A - "It just saves time"
prawnsambo wrote: » That's actually not true. He's entitled to one as a former President. Even if he's impeached and the Senate voted to remove him from office, there's nothing that says he would lose his protection. Or his right to run in future elections. That would have to be done on a separate vote. He would lose his pension though if impeached and voted from office.
Water John wrote: » What does he do then on the 20th when he's no longer President, just a US citizen, stay in Turnberry? Wait until the US issues a warrant for his arrest?
Rjd2 wrote: » Considering it from a purely political POV impeach Trump. What's the point of playing nice with him? He is going to **** around in 2022 and 2024 regardless so try to somewhat neutralise him now when he is at his weakest without his microphone.
briany wrote: » I'm sure that one of millions of supporters would give him a place to stay... But seriously, it's a fascinating question, not because of where he might stay but because of how he handles the 20th. It's as good as a foregone conclusion that he'll be petty and bitter about it. My guess would be that he'll be holding a rally somewhere during the inauguration because he'll need that love to psychologically absorb the otherwise untenable blow that comes at noon of that day. And, this isn't a joke, Trump will want better ratings than the inauguration.
Quin_Dub wrote: » If I read it right , he loses the budget/allowance that is used to cover "Security & Travel" - This is about a million a year. Not sure if that means that he can still have a security detail , but he now has to pay for it himself though.
L1011 wrote: » And with his propensity to stay in his own hotels etc, much of that would be pushed towards his pockets if he got to use it.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Prior to last week , he was absolutely going to hold a rally on the 20th, rambling on about the stolen election etc. etc. He would still probably love to do that , but you'd have to guess that his legal team are expending a huge amount of effort to talk him out of that now. If he does (and he probably will, because he's a petulant child) he will expose himself to even further charges of sedition and incitement. And , if he holds the rally and someone somewhere does something dangerous , which is sadly a near certainty then he'll be responsible for that too.
briany wrote: » While holding a rally on the day of your political successor's swearing-in is a move of classlessness way beyond anything we've seen in modern American presidential politics, would it be an act that is seditious/inciteful by its nature or just by what he could say? Because if it's not by its nature a legally dodgy move then I think it's odds-on that Trump will hold it. Psychologically, Trump may need to hold one - the alternative would be having to vacate a Presidential residence which he would find humiliating. It would be bad enough for him leaving a residence to go do the rally and then having to go to a private residence afterward.
Quin_Dub wrote: » It's not holding the rally - As you say , that's just utterly classless, but not illegal. It's the fact that no matter what script he's handed , he will absolutely veer off and rant about Corruption and how the Presidency was stolen etc. etc. He will also not be able to stop himself talking about "keeping up the fight" or similar language.
Deleted User wrote: » If he flies into a US Air Base on the 19th then of course she can't stop him. What happens on the 20th or 21st when he fancies some golf is the question.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ae95441af6570c932058bb1c78524df6.svg)
