United States Congress stormed by violent followers of defeated president, Biden win confirmation halted Supporters of defeated American president Donald Trump this morning stormed the capital’s legislative halls, shutting down the process to confirm his replacement. Within minutes of the president speaking at a rally on the nearby Mall in Washington DC, in which he urged his followers to march to the Capitol and put a stop to …
I hope he refuses to leave the White House on the 20th and he gets dragged out crying like the baby he is.
Uhhhh ... No. He won't.
If he refuses to leave on the 20th January 2021, he will be classified as an "intruder".
Do you know what the Secret Service do an "intruder" on the grounds of the White House?
"Well, it was under-policed but they did shoot Ashli Babbit through her throat when she attempted to breach a doorway."
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. Given how US police shoot black people for walking a bit funny, if BLM had have done this there would have been soldiers with M16s spraying bullets and killing dozens. One or two terrorists being shot in the course of committing terrorism is not great loss.
Given how US police shoot black people for walking a bit funny,
citation needed
if BLM had have done this there would have been soldiers with M16s spraying bullets and killing dozens. One or two terrorists being shot in the course of committing terrorism is not great loss.
But these were simply peaceful protestors attempting to set up the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. But when BLM/Antifa did this, attacked federal buildings, firebombed police, burned and looted businesses etc.. Those were peaceful protests. Dozens weren't kiled in Portland, Seattle etc. Offers to send in the National Guard were made & refused by Democrat mayors and governors, who offered food, water & portaloos to those peaceful protestors.. And M16's were retired by the US military many years ago.
But such is politics. When peaceful protestors attack closer to home, it's insurrection, coups, terrorism, and cries go out to send in the National Guard. Even Bellendcat tweeted for people to save images so terrorists could be brought to justice.. Which wasn't done with the peaceful protests last year.
Otherwise, was interesting to compare angry mobs. On the left, masked avengers vandalising, burning & tagging everything in sight. On the right, peaceful protestors taking the opportunity for selfies posing in the Speaker's chair. Or office. Which was somewhat more interesting given Pelosi's computer was left unlocked, and apparently someone helped themselves to her hard drives. And someone wandering off with a lectern.
Also curious was 'Buffalo Bill', aka Jake Angeli. Apparently a 'celebrity', and being rather distinctive, also spotted last year at BLM events. So presumably not the err.. right icon for the left to include in the alleged 'white supremacist'.
And coming swiftly after the return of former Ass.Sec Victoria Nuland of 'Fsck the EU' to Obama's new old cabinet, the parallels between yesterday and peaceful protests in Ukraine were rather ironic. What goes around, comes around. And over in NY, there are still proposals to set up internment camps to imprison covid radicals. Yey, democracy!
This post has been deleted by its author
After watching this, after seeing this, if you still support Trump or think that you can conflate perceived ‘crimes’ by Biden or even by Clinton with the ‘misdemeanours’ of Trump then you are beneath contempt. In so doing you actively support a demonstrable fascist.
Similarly, if you continue to support his enablers in the UK (who, not coincidentally, are also the authors of our current disaster - Brexit) then you really aren’t deserving of any respect at all.
This is a truly shocking situation. If he didn’t deserve imprisonment before then he certainly does now. /rant
..and what makes you such a world authority on US domestic politics?
Unless you were born here or have lived here for at least 2 or 3 decades and taken the Oath the term not even wrong comes to mind. The only thing that never seems to change over the decades is foreigners who think they know all about US politics because of stuff they see on the telly. Whereas in fact they actually know just as much about the subject as they do about Mexican politics. Which I might add is a lot more interesting than Canadian politics.
I'm old enough to remember LBJ's last year in office. Now that really was a scary sh*t year. This is just very high stakes political theater. You do know that the BLM mob threatened to do exactly the same, storm the Capitol, if the results were not to their liking. So it was going to happen one way or another. Its been that kind of year.
So anyway, I'm getting some more popcorn. Its going to be a long night. Politics always was a contact sport in the US. But you would have known that already if you actually lived here.
Enjoy your Level 4 Lockdown.
Threatening and doing are two different things.
And some of us here can remember a long way back beyond the last days of LBJ. We can remember back before his first days in office and ow that came about.
"Enjoy your Level 4 Lockdown."
Experience is an dear teacher but there are those who will learn by no other. It sounds like you could be one of those.
Last time the Capitol was occupied by protesters was.. 2018, protesting against a Supreme Court nomination.
I don't recall the same media hysteria back then. I don't recall those protesters being shot.
So tell me, why was yesterday any worse?
Yesterday's mob were the wrong kind of "peaceful protestors", or useful idiots..
I have to agree with you on that one. Yet it does not explain nor refute HOW they ended up "there" doing "that". And the quotes were added by me, fixed for ya.
Once the investigation and arrests happen, we'll know more.
If you seriously cannot see the differences between the 2018 protest and what happened yesterday then I'm practically speechless. In 2018 there was no storming of any building (they didn't enter). In 2018 nobody died. In 2018, the protestors were not being encouraged by the president. In 2018, no looting took place.
That's odd. Senate offices were occupied in 2018. A member of congress was arrested. The police didn't however shoot anybody, unarmed or otherwise. I guess women making false accusations against judges aren't valid targets, just ones wanting a fair election.
"Experience is an dear teacher"
Only if people are willing to be taught
Hint: 1918.
Philadelphia (no lockdown),
St Louis (Lockdown),
San francisco (relaxed too soon),
Apia (worst case scenario)
Pago Pago (proved quarantines work)
The effect of "Spanish flu" was so horrible that americans erased it from their collective cultural memory and only the little things about it leak through, like 1920s movie orphan tropes (guess how their parents died?)
"Enjoy your Level 4 Lockdown"
Enjoy your 3000 dead per day, soon to be 5000. And all because the toddler in chief couldn't be bothered to deal with reality and his idiot followers who just keep on spreading this plague. On the upside there will be a lot fewer of them in a few months.
I am so incredibly thankful that I'm not American and just get to enjoy this shitshow from the sidelines.
"Canada, you know that country to the North that ranks above the US in pretty much every metric that matters."
Including mortality rate from Covid-19? You lot are sitting at around 2.6%, the US at 1.7%. What was that nonsense that you were spouting up-thread again?
Glass houses & all that.
Funny - you think it's funny that it cost you thousands of dollars to not die?
You think it's funny that those who are poor don't get the option to not die?
There is nothing funny at all about the inhuman setup in the US.
There are various things that people dislike about the NHS, but in terms of doing it's main job - saving lives, irrespective of whose lives they are saving - they are widely and rightly praised.
Read what I pointed out again. What percentage of Canadians who get Covid-19 will not survive, vs. us Yanks? Looks like about a 65% worse mortality rate in Kannukistan over the span of the pandemic. That is a rather large difference, regardless of how you try to spin it.
"What about the Americans that can't afford good insurance?" Didn't obomba fixed that years ago - Oboma Care
Recent figures say something like 30% of Americans are in medical debt - Insurance is a scam in the US, and always has been. Making them mandatory (oboma) drove their profits up higher, and hurt people more. You might have to live it to understand it.
But yeah, our insurance scam called healthcare sucks.
So the US is better in your eyes because they do a better job of keeping people alive after they've caught Covid, even though Canada are clearly doing the better job of keeping people alive full stop.
Given that Covid isn't just something that affects the person infected, but during their period of infection will also potentially affect everyone else they come into close contact with, I think I'd prefer the Canadian approach - the fewer people who catch the damn virus in the first place, the far FAR better it is for the country, even if the outcome for those who do catch it might not be quite so rosy.
And bear in mind that mortality rate is dependent on the availability of medical resources - ICU beds, doctors/nurses trained to work on Covid wards etc - to deal with those at risk of death if left untreated. Unless the US does something to reverse the past 3-month trend of rising daily cases, it's only a matter of time before the healthcare system will become overwhelmed and the mortality rate rises.
"over the span of the pandemic"? Jake, the pandemic is not over. I checked today's figures at https://covid19.who.int/table :
Cum cases/mill Cum death/mill %
USA 65053 1070 1.64%
Canada 16391 430 2.62%
So that agrees with your figures, but this isn't a good way of calculating the mortality rate. Deaths trail infections, so if the number of cases is rising steeply, the rise in deaths will be in a few weeks or months, and the rate calculated today will be lower that the final figure. Is that the case here? I don't know.
Supposing there is a real difference in mortality... you (well, USA health professionals) should be telling the world what they are doing differently. Canada and the USA both use Western medicine, and there is mobility of professionals between the systems, so the treatment (as opposed to how the treatment is funded) should be pretty similar. Can you identify a difference that could account for the claimed difference in mortality, or is it just an anomaly caused by the dynamic nature of the statistics?
Canada (426/1000000)100 = % 0.0426... %99.9574 recovery rate
USA (1059/1000000)100 = % 0.1059... % 99.8941 recovery rate
Japan (31/1000000)100 = % 0.0031... % 99.9969 recovery rate
Canadian's are in general healthier people than Americans, obesity and diabetes are two big factors in deaths below the age of 70.
Italy had many deaths as well but they are a country known for having some of the longest lived people in the world... Age is another factor.
Not trying to defend anyone here just trying to show some of the logic behind the numbers. Personally I think all governments have taken a facility approach to society in general. The measures being used work well for a facility/lab but horribly for society at large.
Take Japan for example they have a low death rate but they only suggested the lockdown (not enforced) of the most vulnerable (the elderly) and they have some of the lowest death rate in the world. So your numbers don't have much meaning unless to bring it into context.
I have seen demonisation on both side of the political isle so if you argue a point that can be backed up with facts don't forget the most important thing is logic. Just spewing numbers like it has meaning is pointless to those who do their homework but only confuse the rest.
Biden won, he will be inaugurated. It is done, go home relax and keep the peace. Gas lighting will only get innocent people killed whether you are red or blue.
<<<Be careful when hunting monsters lest you become one>>>
On the upside there will be a lot fewer of them in a few months.
Indeed. Death to the enemies of Democratcy!
(as for plague spreading, s'funny how there's been a lot of politicians on the left as well as the right who've been ignoring Covid restrictions. Do as we say, not as we do..)
You think democracy is coming... whether you like it or not the Democrats will bring censorship on a level never seen in the western world.
Wow, when only one side is heard that isn't democracy... no matter how much you hate the other side, if you don't give them a platform to express their opinions there will be war.
Stop gas lighting, this will only make it worst dude. There are too many things afoot at this time to know for sure if things will be better any time soon... I personally think we are very close to a major war and we should keep our heads otherwise so many will die... this includes what ever affiliations you subscribe to.
Do you think children should be brought into this...do you want to see millions of children dead, keep it up.
Hmm. Check ourworldindata.org stats. As of 7 Jan the top three in COVID-19 deaths per million are:
#1 UK 10.54
#2 DE 8.86
#3 US 8.35
The current 1.325 deaths per day in the UK is actually the highest in the world! So I certainly hope that the lockdown helps.
None of which has ever stopped the USA interfering in and destabilising the politics of other Nation’s internal politics in pursuit of its own ends.
There’s a certain joyless irony in the sight of the USA visiting the sort of chaos it generally reserves for other nations who deliver election results it doesn’t approve of upon itself...
a certain joyless irony in the sight of the USA visiting the sort of chaos it generally reserves for other nations who deliver election results it doesn’t approve of upon itself...
9 11 1973, Santiago, Chile, Chilean President Salvador Allende was removed violently from office by a CIA-backed military coup after the right-wing had made persistent attempts to make his government unworkable. He may have made some mistakes, but it was his "successor", General Pinochet, who instituted mass murders and dictatorship.
Enough space to mention Mossadegh in Iran? 1954 in Guatemala?
https://archive.org/details/central-america-psyop-1953
I could go on ...
"I'm old enough to remember LBJ's last year in office. Now that really was a scary sh*t year. This is just very high stakes political theater."
So am I. And yeah, it was beyond troubled. But you're blathering. This is in no way comparable, especially since I don't recall LBJ trying to overthrow the normal transfer of presidential power (indeed, you may recall he declined to run for re-election).
You are in the grips of fear-mongering nitwits who are eager to give up their rights as long as their preferred strong man can take control. The only thing you've shown is that you're a sucker.
I am a born American citizen, old enough to remember Eisenhower. I am not posting as an anonymous COWARD, because I am neither in this matter. This loser bastard in the White House is the most destructive thing to have ever happened to the Republic since Jefferson Davis stood up on his hind legs and pretended to have some authority. There is a 25th Amendment. It is long past time to invoke it, and save us from two weeks of stupid bloodshed.
You don't think invoking the 25th Amendment wouldn't trigger more bloodshed?
So far Trump's supporters have been very restrained. Unlike BLM they haven't burned down half the city. Unlike BLM they haven't looted local businesses. Unlike BLM they haven't murdered people.
Now compare the media and politician responses to Trump's supporters and BLM, and please, explain to me, what's the incentive for Trump's supporters to accept him being deposed prematurely and to behave when they're treated like this anyway?
An item on the BBC Radio 4 lunchtime news went into a bit of detail on the 25th amendment to the US Constitution concerning the transfer of presidential powers to the Vice President.
It has been used in the past when, for example, President Reagan went into surgery, when he voluntarily, and temporarily, transferred the powers of President to the Vice President George H W Bush.
Clause 4 is the specific one which details how a president may be ousted against his will. The VP and the cabinet have to sign a letter to Congress stating that the President is unfit for office. At which point in time the VP assumes the powers of president. However, if the incumbent objects, the VP and Cabinet have to send another letter, and Congress gets to decide whether the incumbent is to retain power or not. This would take days. In fact even if they started today it could well take until after 20th January.
It will be interesting to see what, if any tweets Trump posts when his account is re-enabled.
There is a 25th Amendment. It is long past time to invoke it, and save us from two weeks of stupid bloodshed.
I assume you wish to specifically invoke article four of that amendment. I agree it should be (already have been) done, but there is that small problem of the current VP as just about really nobody wants him as POTUS (with him being the only possible exception). His main function in the Trump presidency was insurance against impeachment and assassination.
..and what makes you such a world authority on US domestic politics?
The same sort of thing that makes anyone an "authority" on anything - observation ...
Unless you were born here or have lived here for at least 2 or 3 decades and taken the Oath the term not even wrong comes to mind.
Curiously, nobody ever made that same demand from the "Kremlin watchers" who used to be such a fixture on current affairs TV and radio programs when I was young ... and nobody makes the same demand of the outside observers of the Arab and Muslim worlds that are such a fixture of the modern mass media ...
Do you know something? I don't need to be a Trump supporter (or Farage or Johnson supporter for that matter) to be able to empathise with them. I know that the far right supporters are hurt, because their leader lost or because deep down in the last glimmer of rationality that they might have they know that they're wrong - it's the same glimmer of rationality that causes you to post as AC, because you don't want to admit to some truly abhorrent beliefs. I know also that these same supporters are frightened - but not for any rational reason like the loss of democracy, or the destruction of the environment, reasons which have solid evidence to back them up. These supporters are scared of people who have different coloured skin, or a different religion, or a different language - which is all rather sad, because diversity in a country adds interest, it adds ability, it adds strength. The closest to a rational fear is a loss of jobs - and jobs will be lost in obsolete industries like coal, oil etc. But guess what? These jobs are going to go anyway - the pragmatic thing to do is to retrain, and to elect a government which will support that retraining, and provide support for loss of income through social care programmes.
But I'll tell you something else. You're right, I haven't lived in America - I doubt I've spent much more than 6 months in the US in total (although rather more than that if you count both the Americas, and all the countries contained therein). But it's a connected world, I'm an interested chap and I read the news from a variety of reputable sources. More importantly though, I do know the difference between right and wrong. And if you're trying to break into a building, especially if you're doing it armed to the teeth, that isn't 'Political Drama'. It's out and out villainy. This isn't entertainment, people are dying - and I think that you need to consider your values long and hard, think about where your moral compass is pointing, before you open your mouth or put fingers to keyboard again.
As to the lockdown, we should have had it harder and sooner - but better late than never. Like medicine, it's not going to be enjoyable - nor is it meant to be - but Lockdowns do work. And crappy though our government is, at least they've decided to do one thing right (albeit eventually).
especially if you're doing it armed to the teeth, that isn't 'Political Drama'. It's out and out villainy
Fortunately they were all unarmed. Most of them were wandering the halls taking photographs and chatting politely with the armed police that were there with them.
Even the woman that was sadly killed had armed police just a few feet from her - the shot shocked one of them so much that he raised his weapon in defence against the shooter. I'm struggling to label that as out and out villainy.
Don't forget the famous photo of the one carrying a pitch fork. Coz, you know Washington DC has a heavy farming community.
"And the shot shocked him so much he raised his gun in defence?"
So he illegally breaks into the capital building, during the most important moment in that buildings function. Trying to stop the legal process of the election, against law and order because he knows full well he is doing wrong as he had to go through the police, barricades and smashed doors to get there. He then sees someone shot from the legal defenders of the building who are obviously armed and raises his gun????
Why was he carrying a gun, why else was he there and why did he willingly break the law to do it? You can't argue defence when he broke a lot of laws getting into that situation in the first place. Simply put it is villainy,
That is like me getting on a train to London, going into parliament, forcing my into parliamentary chambers, fighting passed all the guards (who would have shot me by now because we have guards) and then punching Boris in the face. But as a defence I then say, "but he was stood next to me."
Why was he carrying a gun, why else was he there and why did he willingly break the law to do it? You can't argue defence when he broke a lot of laws getting into that situation in the first place. Simply put it is villainy,
He was carrying a gun because he was a police officer.
He was there because he was a police officer.
He willingly broke the law because apparently you can't read and understand that he was a police officer.
I can argue defence very easily: He was a police officer.
I do hope that's clear enough for you but feel free to post more nonsense if you want to willfully misinterpret what I've said. Again.
Fortunately they were all unarmed.
How come then that people have been arrested carrying firearms? Did they leave those arms at the reception desk, then after collecting them on leaving the Capitol they got arrested?
Several others were arrested on charges related to carrying unlicensed or prohibited firearms.
It was not immediately clear how many people would be arraigned in court on Thursday.
Contee also told reporters that two pipe bombs were recovered from the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic National Committees, as well as a cooler from a vehicle on US Capitol grounds that contained molotov cocktails.
Ummm ok, so we can't comment on US politics....what's your view on Iranian and North Korean politics?
The only thing that never seems to change over decades is US citizens who think they know all about World politics and don't see problems with paying right wing militias in other countries to rape and kill nuns.....
fixed it for you....
LBJ's last year in office - that would be the shootings of MLK and Bobby Kennedy (former attorney general, brother of JFK), among other things. Yeah no CIA involvement in THAT, either... [like maybe Wednesday's possible "false flag" operation by SOMEONE/THING, rabble rousers probably infiltrating what should have been 100% peaceful, cameras hyper-focus on the <1% involved in illegal activities, etc.]
black helicopter icon, of course
Your bozo comrades posted their pictures and details.
One half of the alt-right is showing off publicly for storming the senate, the other half is blaming antifa for it.
And you still want us to take you seriously?
Here's a much more plausiblev conspiracy theory for you... The government is putting mind-altering drugs in the water supply of republican voters.
Similarly, if you continue to support his enablers in the UK (who, not coincidentally, are also the authors of our current disaster - Brexit) then you really aren’t deserving of any respect at all.
I entirely agree with your comments on Trump, the man is a dangerous megalomaniac and a disgrace to his office and his country, but I take great offence at you drawing parallels with the UK. Trump was democratically elected by Americans, and like him or not, our politicians, of all parties, had little choice but to work with him, just as they do with Putin and Xi Jinping. They have all made it very clear that they accept Biden as his successor and have condemned yesterday's disgraceful scenes in DC. To use Trump's behaviour as an excuse to complain about Brexit is beneath contempt.
Firstly, if you look at the actual votes, Trump didn't win. It's only a quirk of the American electoral system that gave him power in the 2016 election. (62,984,828 to Trump, 65,853,514 to Clinton). He never had legitimacy. As you say though, once in power, we had no choice but to deal with him. What we did have was a choice in whether we supported him. We deal with Putin, for example, but we don't actively support him.
Johnson started out being rude about Trump, later he became overtly pally. Farage has always been pally with Trump. Mogg, Gove ditto. Trumpism is a far right-wing project, ditto Brexit. Far right projects never end well. And I will never stop complaining about Brexit (and I will support all attempts to rejoin and strengthen the EU).
It's only a quirk of the American electoral system that gave him power in the 2016 election. (62,984,828 to Trump, 65,853,514 to Clinton). He never had legitimacy.
He did, the system gave it to him. We may think it's a bizarre system, and maybe it will change some day, but it's the system the US chose, and we have to work with the outcome. It isn't for us to tell the US how to elect its leaders.
Johnson started out being rude about Trump, later he became overtly pally.
He's a politician, he'll appear to be pally with whoever he needs to be to get what he wants. I'm pally with my neighbours, doesn't mean I approve of all aspects of how they run their homes or raise their children.
Farage has always been pally with Trump. Mogg, Gove ditto.
I'd put Farage in the "useful idiot" category, Mogg is too religious and Gove is just too slimy for me, but there again Mogg & Gove at least were elected, and have to be used as best they can.
Trumpism is a far right-wing project, ditto Brexit.
No, Brexit isn't a far-right project, any more than the EU is a far-left one, that's far too simplistic an analysis. There were many Tories who supported Remain, and Brexit was carried through votes of people in quite left-wing areas. If you want to hang a label on it, it was perhaps a libertarian project, but fundamentally it's just a way of escaping a failing economic and political polity and having the opportunity to do better. As with all opportunities, one can use them or not.
And I will never stop complaining about Brexit (and I will support all attempts to rejoin and strengthen the EU).
Well, there we'll just have to disagree.
If by "a quirk" you meant "working as designed in order to get buy-in from the smaller states in the late eighteenth century" then you're right. If you meant some sort of accidental loophole then you're dead wrong. Hate him or loathe him, you can't really argue that Trump's presidency was illegitimate without stooping to the same sort of rhetoric he's using to try to undermine the American democratic system. Which is well and truly broken, but won't be fixed by ignoring it or by storming the nation's capitol. Unfortunately fixing it would need representatives from both parties who are more loyal to their country than to their party.
We in the UK can't complain about the US system, when ours is almost as fucked up as well.
The electoral borders are a joke. Where I used to live, a small village, one half voted for one neighbouring towns candidates, the other for a different towns. It was even broken up down the middle of individual roads.
Don't even get me started on MPs that don't even live in the same fucking county as they stand for.
Don't get you started? Don't get me started! My MP does live in the constituency. On my street. And apart from being a thoroughly unpleasant person is one of the Speakers and therefore can't even represent the constituency by voting!
Firstly, if you look at the actual votes, Trump didn't win. It's only a quirk of the American electoral system that gave him power in the 2016 election. (62,984,828 to Trump, 65,853,514 to Clinton). He never had legitimacy.
This viewpoint is very common, however it's a fallacy. The electoral system was designed specifically this way by the Founding Fathers for at least two very good reasons.
Firstly, they realised that if a demagogue with dictatorial tendencies was ever to appear, they could end up controlling the entire country simply by concentrating their efforts on the few large population centres of the nation.
Secondly, the smaller states would never have agreed to join the union without fair representation, something that a simple nationwide popular vote might not reflect.
If we break things down to the county level, this is how the results looked for the 2016 election:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png
Does that level of Republican dominance appear democratically illegitmate to you?
I'm sorry, but your argument is the actual fallacy here. You posted a graphic showing the republican dominance at county levels which actually confirms the original posters comment.
In almost every other advanced democracy on the planet, one person = one vote, because equality. Anything else can rightly be referred to as a "quirk of the American electoral system" which has perpetuated the situation in the US where the votes of people living in highly populated areas count less than the votes of people living in sparsely populated areas.
The amount of land you own shouldn't determine the amount of political representation you get nowadays, that's a throwback to slave era plantation owner logic. Americans abolished slavery but kept the slave owner states favoring system which disadvantages more populated areas, and that's a quirk. And let's not even get started with what happens regards redistricting at county levels.
In almost every other advanced democracy on the planet, one person = one vote, because equality.
Most countries have a constituency system where governments are formed based on the number of seats won. Since constituency sizes vary, at least slightly, even one person = one vote won't guarantee that the popular vote winner has the largest number of seats. There are certainly ways in which a party could form a government in the UK while having fewer overall votes than another party.
Please don’t conflate Trump with Brexit.
Plenty of people like Europe & Europeans, just don’t want to be governed by Europe, think Trump is a dangerous nut jump and don’t support Trump.
There are plenty of people who don’t support Trump and also don’t support Biden.
There are flaws in American politics and they are just being exposed.
Because he's the president, he can't be prosecuted unless he is first impeached by Congress and then found guilty of committing a serious crime and stripped of his office by the Senate. After that, he can be prosecuted as normal & sent to prison. But they tried that once, senators from his party supported him and the attempt failed.
Also, the people who would press charges all report to the president; he will fire them if they start investigating him.
There's nothing that can be done about him before the day Biden takes office.
Trump has stated "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters", and his lawyers have argued he could do that and would be immune from prosecution until he stops being president. Though the lawyer did admit that in that case, Trump could be arrested as soon as he stops being president.
Also, on his last day, he's also going to try the "pardon himself" trick, or perhaps the "resign and get Pence to pardon him" trick. That will tie up any court case for years. The founders of the US were honourable people, so that loophole didn't occur to them.
Trump tweeted his disappointment in Pence for failing to keep him in power. In the "minds" of the revolutionaries Pence is a traitor and was a major target in the attempted coup. As Pence is not completely stupid he kept out of sight until after the revolutionaries were kicked out. The lame duck has already decided Pence is an enemy and has selected him as the scapegoat for losing the election. I am sure Pence feels slightly safer now that Trump's social media accounts are frozen.
I have a lot of respect for Pence to be honest, I do wonder why on earth he ran with Trump though as it looked like he could have been a legit competitor to him if he'd bothered.
He did the right thing though, I've no doubt he knew he'd anger many of Trumps supporters though. Credit where it's due - he put country first, shame Trump can never see past himself.
Well, the US first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and protests in Washington DC are commonplace and a standard part of democracy.
At the rally an hour or so beforehand Trump asked people to march to the Capitol but also explicitly asked them to peacefully protest.
It'd be hard to prove in court that asking people to exercise a centuries old right to protest and to do it peacefully is inciting violence.
He has done everything he can to stoke the fire. And he has done this consistently: Lock her up!, the press is the enemy of the people! Liberate Michigan! We won in a landslide!On a legal technicality note, the 'incitement' exception to the first amendment requires an immediate proximity to the inciting language of the effect. Saying something over a period of time as he has, months, years, would not satisfy the "immediacy" requirement. e.g. you say something inciteful (is that even a word?), and immediately the people who heard it go out and do the acts they've been told (incited) to, that could satisfy the exceptions to the First. But if someone goes home, stews on it overnight, then does it the next day, that's usually a large enough separation from the language to escape incitements immediacy requirement.
The problem isn't necessarily what he said on the day (not that I'm defending those comments, mind), but what he's been saying for the past few months, the things that have emboldened his supporters into coming to Washington *already* prepared to cause trouble. Sooner or later all of that built-up tension and anger that he's been instrumental in fermenting within his faithful was going to come out, storming the Capitol was the point at which "sooner or later" became "now".
Without challenging your point (because I understand it and accept that it's a valid perspective) I would highlight that Trump's popularity was because he did speak for many Americans, and he does continue to do so.
Blaming Trump for the Washington political class being entirely alien vast numbers of American people would be letting them off the hook. He was elected because he offered something different, and he gained 12 million votes in his second election because he delivered something different too.
Meanwhile his opponent couldn't in several thousand counties outperform the person that lost to Trump four years ago..
... Trump can't be charged with Treason, because our Constitution only provides for that charge in times of War. Since Congress has not declared War, we're technically not at war - we can argue about the reality details some other time - therefore the Treason charge can't be brought. Although it should.
Even with these images being seen around the world, Trump's Republican supporters in Congress are still equivocating. People have the right to express their political views. That's a direct quote.
Yeah, right. By storming into the Capitol building dressed in combat fatigues and ransacking the place. While shooting videos on their phones, to post on YouTube later.
If any US Vets took part in this attempted Coup, at Trump's behest, shame on you. You are a disgrace to the uniform you used to wear. You took an oath when you joined, just like I did. Shame on you.
IIRC the Vice President with others in nominated offices can declare the POTUS unfit by the 25th Amendment - with presumably immediate effect. That won't stop what is effectively an insurrection and may even inflame the violence further. The USA - now looking like a 1950s banana republic - except it is hard to see the military siding with Trump.
> IIRC the Vice President with others in nominated offices can declare the POTUS unfit by the 25th Amendment [ ... ]
Yes, the vice-president can indeed do that. He needs a majority of the cabinet to sign off on the declaration.
Sadly I don't see Mike Pence doing this. He is too much of a sycophant. I'd love to be proven wrong.
The criminal currently occupying the White House is a danger to the world at this point.
Be careful what you wish for. Even the conservative ultra-right old guard doesn't want that fucking nutcase Pence in the oval office, not even for just a couple of weeks ... Why do you think Trump picked him as a running-mate? Pence is insurance that keeps Trump from being booted out before his term is over.
I agree that any sane president picks a vice who is even more detestable to his opposition to reduce the chance of assassination but Trump did not pick Pence. Trump came out with his shortlist. The blatant traitors and criminals were trimmed away and everyone else said "no chance".
It was getting embarrassing so some bright spark in the Republican party seized the opportunity to deal with another problem. Pence was set to lose a safe seat as governor of Indiana to a Democrat. The Republicans needed Pence elsewhere so they could put up anyone else as a candidate. He was invited to interview for the position of vice presidential candidate. Instead Pence publicly accepted the non-existent offer to become vice president and flew over for the confirmation.
This suited everyone but Trump who spent the night texting campaign staff and demanding that the find anyone else. In the morning Trump announced Pence as his choice - in true Trumpian style. He turned up late and kept journalists waiting to the song "you can't always get what you want". A normal presidential nominee would spend at least 5 minutes extolling the virtues of his pick so Pence could do the same back but Trump missed that bit out, tersely announced Pence then walked out.
If Trump had enough brains to stage a successful coup in the US he would have replaced Pence years ago because there is no way that Pence would want to live in Trumpistan.
Yes, the Vice President needs the majority of the cabinet to agree.
HOWEVER -- Ths can only be done by official, Congressionally-confirmed Secretaries. Interim or "acting" Secretaries don't have the authority, and Mousseolini DOES love him some acting Secretaries. I haven't kept track of how many there are right now.
Coincidentally enough, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao (Mrs. Mitch McConnell, senate majority leader) is apparently considering tendering her resignation.
The exact same place. The VP has no legal standing to do anything other than count the electoral votes presented to him. There have already been a few (half a dozen?) cases filed by Trump and the GOP about this that have all failed.
IIRC the Vice President with others in nominated offices can declare the POTUS unfit by the 25th Amendment
From what I've read about this it may not be so easy. The 25th amendment allows the VP+cabinet to replace a president who is unable to fulfil the role, through illness or incapacity, but it doesn't provide for removing a president who is unfit or shows poor judgement. Impeachment is the solution to that, and there isn't enough time left. Maybe if they could get a medical judgement of dementia or insanity they could use the 25th, but that seems unlikely to be possible before Jan 20th. If he won't go after that, of course, they have other alternatives. Starting with having him arrested for trespass.
I think, I hope, that we will see President Harris in the next ten years - I think that she'll do an amazing job. Since she's a person of integrity, she won't need to resort to underhand tactics to achieve this end.
In the meantime, President Biden is a capable, and experienced, politician and diplomat, a man of integrity who can make a start on repairing the damage wrought by Trump and the GOP over the past 4 years.
I sincerely hope that the GOP realises that it looks rather silly, and very fascist, at the moment - and starts making amends. That isn't to say that I want them to agree on all issues, and to spinelessly backup the Democrats. But they need to stand on evidenced and reasoned principle - and not just wilfully block reform out of habit.
In my opinion you are overly optimistic about the length of Biden's presidency. I expect him to resign for reasons of health (because the job is tougher than he thought and he is older than Trump) after about three months.
To everybody who wishes to vote on this post (whether up or down), I recommend waiting those three months and vote at that time, depending on the accuracy of the prediction.
that anyone has downvoted any of the above comments. Trump was clearly trying to ignore due process of law, and overrule the results of an election. Trumpists tried in court 60 times, and had no case worthy of merit, even according to Republican judges picked by Trump himself! They presented no evidence to back their allegations. If later they CAN provide evidence of wrongdoing during the election, then I very much hope that they do present it properly in a court of law, so that the courts can decide whether the result in question needs to be overturned. But violent protest, and storming the Capitol because they dont like the result of the election? That regards anyone that doesnt do or say exactly what he wants them to do or say? That's insurrection, anti-democratic, and frankly disgusting.
As for a president blatantly trying to rig a Senate election he didn't like? Republicans threw out Nixon for less. What a shame that Trumpists dont have the moral fibre of the Republicans of all those years ago.
Trump was clearly trying to ignore due process of law, and overrule the results of an election. Trumpists tried in court 60 times
So they tried to ignore due process of law by going to court to assure that the election was fair and provide transparency so that its results to be trusted?
You have an interesting interpretation of due process of law if using the court system to challenge perceived election issues ignores it.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Texas' evidence. It wasn't evidence that settled that case.
But leaving aside the viability of the court cases, going to court _is_ due process. It's also all that's been done.
Nobody's been arrested. No false ballots were magically found giving votes to Trump. No poll counters have been bribed to give votes to Trump. Nobody's broken into election official buildings and destroyed evidence.
Whether you agree with the court cases or not, pretending that going to court isn't due process is.. well, a sign of a dictator.
Wrong. The courts are not political tools. In the UK there is thing called wasting police time. If you don't have a case, i.e. you have no evidence, you are not owed any time by the justice system.You cannot just bring a complaint to court and ask the court to prove or disprove it. You have to to prove your point and if you can show you have some evidence the state, graciously, provides effort for the defense.
Trump didn't lose in court, he had stuff thrown out before a hearing. He was abusing the court system for column inches.
Nothing to do with truth or justice or taking sides. There is no evidence of election fraud. Or at least Trump's lawyers have not found any that is admissible in court.
What attempted coup?
Who tried to harm members of Congress? Who took control over the media broadcasters? Who used forced of arms to control the seat of Government?
This was a protest. People were stupid, very little damage was done, the business of Government was delayed by a few hours, nobody was removed from office and the only deaths were an unarmed woman shot by police and three deaths from 'medical complications' that have been barely reported. That's not a coup.
Oh please. There were several hundred thousand people in DC yesterday protesting for a fair election.
If they'd _tried_ to take the Capitol they'd have taken it with ease. If you want proof: A hundred or so of them found themselves wandering the building in utter surprise, not sure what they were doing there.
They were expected to peacefully protest outside the Capitol: https://youtu.be/1OXFmnTtO6s?t=769
Most of them did exactly that. Calling it a coup is miserably tedious.
"our Constitution only provides for that charge in times of War."
I don't think that's entirely true, and because I'm in need of distraction, I'm going to overanalyze why I think that. You can probably skip this when you get bored.
The relevant part of the American constitution reads as follows:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
So it appears that treason has two definitions, neither of which includes anything like "in time of war". I'd argue that one of them at least implies war: "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", but you can have enemies without having war with them, or you can have enemies with whom you can't be at war in the international law sense because the enemies aren't states. But fine, I'll restrict this to define enemies as countries the U.S. declared war on. Somehow, I think people would define it differently if someone was being charged after working with a non-state organization which wished to destroy the U.S., but we'll leave that alone.
The reason I can do that is that there is another option listed there: "levying War against them". Once again, we have a word without a clear definition. War could mean a state of war declared by a recognized country, but I don't really think that's an honest description of how it's used. Let's try a dictionary. While it includes "Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups, usually involving the engagement of military forces.", it also includes "Any conflict, or anything resembling a conflict.". It appears the dictionary isn't going to help much in getting a firm definition of what is and isn't war.
Let's instead try history. What have generally been called wars? The traditional country-fights-country things, of course, but several smaller things too. Civil wars, which don't involve a declaration of war since each side considers the opposition government at least illegitimate and often beneath consideration. Wars which didn't have a formal declaration (Korean War, Iraq War). Campaigns involving smaller wars (war on terror). Not to mention that it's also frequently used by people who aren't governments (I.E. "we are at war with [something they don't like]". If these are wars, then perhaps "levying War against them" is easier than it seems. Maybe even saying that you intend to be at war with the U.S. is enough. Maybe an act similar to one taken in a war is enough. On that basis, a violent attack on a government institution might be sufficient, as that's certainly enough to start a war if a country did it and has certainly started an armed conflict when a group of people did it.
I'm done now. I think the original interpretation is incorrect. I need to sleep.
Matt Reed draws attention to section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States here (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/dusting-classic).
It States:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
"our Constitution only provides for that charge in times of War."
"I don't think that's entirely true, and because I'm in need of distraction, I'm going to overanalyze why I think that."
Your analysis appears to be correct. Although I persoinally simply checked the list of people convicted of treason on Wikipedia and the list of declarations of war. First war: 1812. First treason conviction: 1800. Whether any amendments have changed this position, I do not know.
It looks like "sedition" fits the bill better than "treason":
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384.html
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, **or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States**, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
If any US Vets took part in this attempted Coup, at Trump's behest, shame on you. You are a disgrace to the uniform you used to wear. You took an oath when you joined, just like I did. Shame on you.
Which uniform? One with a Donkey on it? But I thought that oath had something about defending against enemies, foreign or domestic? And coups are kina constitutional, ie that whole 2nd Amendment thing the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution to protect against tyranny..
It's better to keep quiet and be thought a moron rather than speak and remove all doubt. That applies to you, Sir.
One obviously didn't think like you, but as she was shot, that will no longer be a problem. But such is politics. But a little thought experiment. Like H.R. 838, the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act by Babin(R) and Demings(D). As Babin says..
"Let's manage the threat before an attack occurs because by the time the first shot has fired,it is too late–we have failed."–Rep. Babin
Which might be timely. Attack occured yesterday, threat could have been managed if every threat had already been locked up safely before then. But basically a pre-crime proposal. It's a bit like the 'sus' laws we had in the UK, until the.. obvious problems with those became apparent.
Meanwhile, the US now has the ability for the Dems to pass any laws they fancy, including expanding the Supreme Court and packing that to avoid any troublesome dissent.
How would the US public respond to potential tyranny, and don't you think the 2nd Amendment had something to say about that?
The one I wore for eight years, alongside many others just like me.It's better to keep quiet and be thought a moron rather than speak and remove all doubt. That applies to you, Sir.
Something I forgot to ask/mention. The US military recruits from across the population. Ok, so it may attract more people with traditionally conservative views.. But assuming recruitment does broadly match the population, then statistically political views should also broadly match the general population. Which would mean a large part of the current US military does not share your views. You can also see that by current and veteran military's votes for Trump.
But political diversity is generally considered a good thing. You may remember from your history classes about things like Stalin's purges of the Russian military to rid itself of political undesireables. Caused a few.. issues pre/post WW2 though. But Germany also had it's professional/career military (Wehrmacht) and political wing (SS), and it's own purges where wrong-thinkers and radicals were locked up, then executed or worked to death.
And as I'm sure you're aware, that kind of polarisation and creation of 'them and us' has rarely ended well, especially not in left-wing or authoritarian states. I'm sure the US won't make the same mistakes, and will reverse the divisions and polarisation it's created ever since 2016. At least the US military doesn't have political officers*, yet.
*Unless you count 37A, but they'd just deny it. They're funny like that..
In case you're confused about what 'it' is, I'm talking about social media. Four years of undiluted toxic discourse and hate speech has brought the US to the point of insurrection.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube - all need regulation and fining billions for past crimes. There is no such thing as unregulated freedom of speech. They are publishers and should be treated as such. If they publish hate speech then they should face the consequences.
"[...] and commercial platforms like Facebook and Twitter don't count."
Possible GOP presidential candidate Senator Josh Hawley has had his book publication cancelled by Simon & Schuster after his recent behaviour to prevent the Biden certification. He now claims that is an attack on the 1st Amendment
He declares:
"This could not be more Orwellian … Let me be clear, this is not just a contract dispute. It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment … I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have. We’ll see you in court.".
Totally agree with the sentiment!
Just one point of order: "Four years of undiluted toxic discourse" is underselling it. Trump is not the cause of the disease, only its ugliest symptom.
He managed to weaponize what was already there for his own gain, but the proof of the toxic influence of social media, the damage caused by the echo chambers, the infinite capacity to repeat lies, were clearly known -if underestimated- long before the US 2016 campaing
President George Washington's farewell address on leaving office:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Just because Trump is dumb enough to believe that repealing Section 230 would stop social media from blocking his posts doesn't make it true. Biden has suggested a repeal as well, and it'll be left to congress to figure out what, if anything, should replace it.
If Facebook and Twitter bear liability for what their users post, they will either have to be a LOT more forceful in their moderation, or cease to exist to their current form and be replaced by something with much more limited communication (i.e. no more "millions of followers")
I believe it's time to remove him immediately because he's a crazy man who can't be the President of the United States. And he should spend the rest of his life in a psychiatric hospital. He and his cronies made more damages to the Unites States than all its enemies combined.
"Make America Great Again"? They abased it as never before in history. Maybe only McCarthy got closer enough. All of them acting like realCommunists. Blind faith in their "dear Leader", and trashing the Constitution.
I believe it's time to remove him immediately because he's a crazy man who can't be the President of the United States.
While I completely agree with you, there is one minor detail which makes it -to say the least- undesirable and that is the current vice-president. If that individual were to be removed from office immediately prior to or at the same time as Trump is removed from office, the results might be a bit different. On the other hand, having a Democrat (Nancy Pelosi) succeeding the president in that situation might drive a lot of Trump supporters really over the brink.
I don't see any problem with Pence becoming president for two weeks. He may be a Trump enabler, but he isn't going to incite a treasonous mob to storm another branch of government in an attempted coup, nor start a war in a fit of pique hoping to leave a mess for the next administration, or whatever other craziness that unstable moron currently occupying the White House might do in the next 13 days.
He would be a model of stability and civility compared to what we've been forced to endure the past four years.
A couple hundred hot-headed idiots are not going to stop the political process here in the United States. Their actions are not going to affect anyone in the US in any way, shape or form long-term ... Except for themselves[0]. The dumb-asses will be processed, and dealt with according to law.
Remember, children, protest is GOOD. Everybody is allowed to voice their opinion here in the US. And we SHOULD. However, dumb-asses rioting and busting into Federal buildings isn't voicing an opinion, it's an attempt at insurrection. Which is about as anti-American as it gets. How dare they?
Congress will resume in the morning, the Republicans will have their little tiff, the Democrats (with the help of the VP) will probably gain control of the Senate, and Biden will be sworn in at Noon on Inauguration Day. Nothing will stop this, regardless of what the cry-baby in the Oval Office and his self-appointed violent minions try to do.
As for me and mine, nothing that is happening in DC this afternoon will affect our lives one bit. It is absolutely laughable to think otherwise, no matter how much the news tries to suggest otherwise. This is a story that happened, but it's all over now ... barring the mopping up, of course. Time to get on with prepping dinner, tomorrow is another day. Will probably lightly till the trash under in the big veggie garden and put in our yearly Winter cover crop to hold the soil in until spring. Life continues, and we all gotta eat.
[0] Yes, I know, apparently one women was hurt badly, possibly shot. Keep her and her family in your thoughts. They have done absolutely nothing to deserve being put into this position by a handful of un-American thugs.
Those "couple hundred hot-headed idiots" could be just the tip of a far more dangerous iceberg. Especially if they will escape the law.
Non-violent protests are good. Assaulting a Parliament to hinder its functioning is not. People who live in countries where that happened in the past already, are not so sure it will take just some mopping up to restore things as they were before.
1) It further diminishes America's standing on the world stage. The actions were the sort of things you'd expect from a banana republic, not a country that sees itself as a shining beacon of democracy. And they were called for by the sitting US President.
2) They also indicate the deep rifts in US society, brought about by Trump's failure to concede. There is a serious risk of further violence as a large part of the US believes Trump's lies about the election being "stolen". In the American psyche, 2nd Amendment etc, use of force to overturn an "illegitimate" government does not seem too unreasonable, some people will see it as their duty. I don't think it will get as far as a full US civil war - I hope that the police and armed forces at least will stay loyal to the President - but I think a lot of violence over the next few years is very likely.
3) It also shows how crap the security at the US capital is. Those people should never have been allowed to get inside the building. The riot should have been stopped (by barriers or bullets) before they got inside. The security people have seriously failed.
The "protesters" were predominantly white so little was done and the media mostly failed to call them out on being insurrectionists. If this had been a predominantly non-white group, a lot more than 1 would have been shot and the media would have immediately labeled them insurrectionists and/or rioters.
It *IS* notable how the arrested/beaten/shot ratios of this group vs the average BLM protest compare.
With luck - not that I expect this, mind you - there will be DC police at every hotel as these thugs check out tomorrow checking bags for guns illegally brought into the city.
OTOH, if at LEAST one law-enforcement agency isn't already filling out subpoena request forms for DC-area cell tower data, I will be EXTREMELY surprised.
Indeed. I don't recall police shooting dead any BLM protesters. I do recall the police kneeling to BLM protesters. I note that many people were arrested yesterday - including the ones that brought guns into DC.
When assessing the arrested/beaten/shot ratios do please control for the number of burned out buildings, looted shops and murdered black people. RIP David Dorn.
There is significant evidence that a lot of the "BLM rioting" was nothing of the kind. At least in Minnesota, the rioting and burning was started by a white man wearing a gas mask of the type issued by the St Paul police (but no way to identify him and it is possible to buy as a civilian (just very expensive)). A lot of the later rioting and burning appeared to be done by groups of armed white men. If nothing else, the common sense factor says it was highly unlikely to be non-whites (or white BLM supporters) as the areas of Minneapolis that were burned were predominantly non-white.
There is significant evidence that a lot of the "BLM rioting" was nothing of the kind
Don't forget "umbrella man". Google that if you haven't seen it. White guy dressed in nondescript clothing randomly carrying an umbrella just walks up to a shop and casually breaks windows. Not the "angry people throwing rocks through a window" you expect from a crowd that's gone from peaceful protest to angry vandalism. Just walking on by and breaking it. He was CLEARLY a plant - probably an off duty or retired cop wanting to give the police an excuse to start breaking out the tear gas and rubber bullets.
The "protesters" were predominantly white so little was done and the media mostly failed to call them out on being insurrectionists.
The US media I was watching yesterday were very quick to do that.. As was Biden, in between calling on someone to do something.. Fairly sure Trump isn't Mayor of DC though, that's a, well.. Democrat. Unlike the Mayors of say, Portland or Seattle, this Mayor did request the support from Federal agencies that was offered..
"As for me and mine, nothing that is happening in DC this afternoon will affect our lives one bit."
It's a warning signal. A smarter operator than Trump now has the spadework already done for them. All they have to do is cultivate the planted seeds.
The UK is in a similar position. Brexit campaigns gave licence to certain minority attitudes - and the Government has lurched towards the extreme right to capitalise on that sector's popularity. Boris Johnson is a self-seeking incompetent - who has vowed to remove the checks & balances obstructing his path to glory. When he goes - that support is likely to double-down for a more competent tyrant.
"People that voted to leave the EU patiently saw out over four years of lies, sedition, invented laws, subversion of democracy and vile abuse from the media and peacefully achieved their goal."
If I remember correctly, one Leave voter (A. B. de P. Johnson) attempted to illegally shut down Parliament.
True enough, Dr. S.
However, I suspect that this is it for this chapter in this country. Might be a few more hotwarmish spots here and there in the next couple weeks, but I doubt it. Even Pence is yapping against his Master.
This round's on me. We can all use one.
Islay is good. I like Oban and Glenlivet (Smiths); and thinking about it, pretty much all of the Scottish and Irish single malts; without ice, snow or water (Famous Grouse blended malt is OK too).
I know that many Scots drinkers add ~50% water, as is their right; but after drinking with a couple of polis men in 1980s Glasgow who had their Grouse mixed 1:1 with concentrated orange squash, I now reserve my judgement...
Eclectic, Jura is highly passable. You'd be accepted in good company with a pint of Jura. I mean I wouldnae drink it if I had a choice but sometimes I have to drink whisky so awful that lemonade is added.
For decades I've been taught that the only acceptable whisky mixer is cold water. In the past year I've read articles claiming that mixing 10 to 75 percent water actually gets you more pished, plus makes it taste better.
I'm not sure about that but I've started adding 10% water just to make the good stuff last longer.
@ Danny 2 "You'd be accepted in good company with a pint of Jura."
Well, hello Danny 2, and a Happy New Year to you.
A pint* of Jura! I'd never finish it. After a mere 2 pints of cider (5% abv) I'm pretty much anybody's. My last 750cl bottle of 10 year-old Jura lasted me over a year. Still, being unable to hold my liquor does have the advantage that getting drunk is quite cheap. I do not dilute spirits often, except when I have a cold and add them to tea. Or at Christmas, New Year, and other special occasions, like birthdays or weekends ;o)
*"A pint! That's very nearly an armful!" (Hancock, "The Blood Donor", BBC.)
Islay is good. I like Oban and Glenlivet (Smiths); and thinking about it, pretty much all of the Scottish and Irish single malts; without ice, snow or water (Famous Grouse blended malt is OK too).
Looking on the bright side.. Now that Brexit's out of the way, Scottish malts may become cheaper in the US due to not being included in the US-EU trade spat du jour. And vice-versa for importing US booze into the UK.. Which could be handy given the number of US 'craft' distilleries cropping up.
I wrote: "Congress will resume in the morning"
Well, damn! I was wrong. They are resuming as I type, this evening, not tomorrow morning. Mea culpa.
Hopefully the anti-American thugs are proud of themselves, because everybody else is yawning at them. Except their mummys, of course; they must be ever-so proud.
] Yes, I know, apparently one women was hurt badly, possibly shot. Keep her and her family in your thoughts. They have done absolutely nothing to deserve being put into this position by a handful of un-American thugs.
She was, in the raw phone video right after the injury, wearing a trump flag. If she was a rioter, I have less sympathy.
Simply because they hold differing views, no. Holding views that means they're going to choose to do something utterly insane like trying to forcibly gain access to a government building whilst a significant number of the government were inside, knowing the risks they'd be exposed to as a result? That's a whole other matter. They were shot because they were in a place they weren't supposed to be, and they were there because of their political views, but they weren't shot because they held those views...
They were shot because they were in a place they weren't supposed to be, and they were there because of their political views, but they weren't shot because they held those views...
I.. see. So it's ok for US law enforcement to shoot people for simple trespass? I know the US has had a year or so of rioting.. I mean peaceful protests because of police brutality, but people seem to be saying this is normalised now. I guess with Capitol Hill 2.0, the buildings could be surrounded with security fences, razor wire, machine gun nests and assorted wall building*. Those symbols of free & open democracy. It could even copy signs used in places like Area 51 warning that lethal force is authorised against anyone who dares defy the sacred space.
(Which could be a good thing, if it reduces the number of lobbyists & hookers from visiting)
"So it's ok for US law enforcement to shoot people for simple trespass?"
There are a large number of government facilities for which the answer to that is 'quite possibly'. Think, for example, of military bases, intelligence facilities, nuclear facilities, the White House. Try storming Fort Bragg, even unarmed (there was no way to tell if the woman breaking through a door is armed or not, of course) and see if you end up alive or dead.
There are a large number of government facilities for which the answer to that is 'quite possibly'. Think, for example, of military bases, intelligence facilities, nuclear facilities, the White House.
Well, yes.. I did mention Area 51, and no doubt new signs are on order to place around the Capitol to reflect the new administration's changed views wrt police 'brutality'.
Try storming Fort Bragg, even unarmed (there was no way to tell if the woman breaking through a door is armed or not, of course) and see if you end up alive or dead.
Now you're just fishing. No, wait..
https://www.visitfayettevillenc.com/listing/mcarthur-lake/6780/
Just one of several lakes in Fort Bragg that allow public fishing & recreation. Hunting seals & squids is actively encouraged! <sarc>
But I digress.. Thing about reality vs fiction is there's usually some form of documentary evidence for one, not the other. Including footage from Utah resident John Sullivan - founder of the far-left organization "Insurgence USA" who made headlines in July after he was arrested for shooting at drivers in Provo. He was interviewed on CNN, who presumably didn't bother fact checking his identity. But other camera phone footage was also there showing multiple angles of the shooting. Like the woman being shot as she attempted to climb through a fairly small window, which required both her hands.. And she then fell back practically into the arms of uniformed officers who were on the 'mob' side of the door, who tried to save her life.
Luckily America's President-Elect has already pledged to prosecute any violent protestors to the fullest extent of the law-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTg1ynIPGls
Think of it as "The Capitol Putsch".
A bunch of hyper-thyroid yahoos try to overthrow - or, at least, overrule - the sitting government and are summarily dispatched. Ten years or so later, someone figures out how to do it right.
We, I think, are not so much afraid of THESE doofi as we are of what it could portend when a publicly known and media-hog organizer (if such a term can be used here) of the NEXT group isn't stupid enough to walk around the city that has REALLY stiff gun laws carrying loaded high-capacity ammo magazines and gets arrested the day before the big show.
THAT'S what we're worried about.
... whether Mr Trump will further denigrate the office of President of the USA by pardoning the rioters who stormed the US Houses of Congress.
I also wonder why we have not heard Vice President Pence's reaction to the events, including the astonishing act of him being escorted from the Capitol by his Secret Service bodyguards.
The phrase 'interesting times' does not even begin to do the events justice.
From the BBC US Live Feed at 20:45 UTC
The vice-president has asked Trump supporters to leave the Capitol and stop the violence.
"This attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Mike Pence tweeted.
Pence, who has insisted he cannot overturn the results of the election despite pressure for the president, was presiding over the electoral college vote when protesters stormed the building and he was shepherded to safety.
Wait, you think the VP may have committed crimes? That's.. something I've only heard as unproven allegations from someone on twitter that keeps making unproven allegations and fails to provide any substance or evidence to support those claims.
Certainly I've heard nothing regarding his actions in office that would lead to criminal charges so I'm really not sure why you think a pardon would be remotely on his mind.
Trump learned mob techniques from Roy Cohn. He wouldn't need Pence to commit a crime, he just needs to put someone Pence cares about into a compromised position. Though Pence did commit some financial crimes a few decades ago so he's not as squeaky clean as some may assume.
But that may not matter if Trump hooked Pence's nephew into committing crimes, wittingly or not: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/jared-kushner-campaign-shell-company
Pence may not need a pardon for himself, but it is very easy to imagine his nephew will. Even if he didn't knowingly do anything wrong, I'm sure Eric Trump's wife as president of the LLC could have arranged for Pence's nephew to be left holding the bag the financial crimes that LLC has no doubt committed. "Here, you need to sign this, I can't since I'm married to the president's son and the democrats will seize on it for another 'hoax' if I do"
"Wait, you think the VP may have committed crimes? That's.. something I've only heard as unproven allegations from someone on twitter that keeps making unproven allegations and fails to provide any substance or evidence to support those claims.
Certainly I've heard nothing regarding his actions in office that would lead to criminal charges so I'm really not sure why you think a pardon would be remotely on his mind."
The current administration is demonstrably guilty of a large number of offences. If I were involved in any part of it I would quite like a pre-emptive pardon as you can never be sure exactly what can be pinned on whom. And you know Trump is going to try to pin as much as he can on other people on his way down.
My guess is that Trump will not try to pardon them until maybe the morning of the 20th January, (assuming he is still President and has not unleashed the USA's military might on Iran to give the incoming President Biden something to keep him occupied for the next 4 years*). But frankly nobody knows what he will do next. The fact that the President of the USA is currently banned temporarily from posting Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posting is just amazing.
*I genuinely believe that Bid will not run for a second term
I raised that among my friends and one smarter than I said "Hold the issuing of charges until January 21st."
A lot of peaceful protestors in places like Portland, Seattle, NY, Chicago etc weren't charged at all, after all, they were simply expressing their First Amendment rights. Fairly sure that didn't include rights to loot or destroy property, but such is politics..
"I raised that among my friends and one smarter than I said "Hold the issuing of charges until January 21st." "
And then another, even-smarter, one, said that pardons can be activated before charging, any time after the offence has been committed. See, for example, Carter's draft dodger pardons, which also allow for pardoning unnamed people.
I also wonder why we have not heard Vice President Pence's reaction to the events, including the astonishing act of him being escorted from the Capitol by his Secret Service bodyguards.
I rather suspect the same thing happened to Pelosi given the Speaker's role in the line of succession.. Her hasty removal may explain why her computer was left logged in. The Secret Service don't mess around in those situations, and both were probably removed to seperate, secure locations.
Vlad expected Trump to lose four years ago and was ready to call for armed uprisings back then. He had to pivot quickly to re-direct his message to Democrats. With four years to prepare I thought Vlad would have done far more damage. Clearly like everyone else he is hampered by a clueless narcissist president who could only attract third rate sycophants for key government positions and delusional Qnatics for his armed militia.
Indeed so.
I lived in the USA for 22 years and contrary to many opinions here it is not that bad a place - like all countries it has plenty of idiots. The issue of health care is strange to many here, but I would remind them that we (UK) were in the same place at the end of WW2. Injured soldiers coming back from the front were treated better than in previous conflicts (discharged and no way to earn a living). Glass houses and all that.
Our benefits system when I was much younger was not anywhere near as generous as it is today. (So if some think it is not generous enough, remember it is far better than what we had).
I was ok as I always had insurance and in fact many tech companies (and probably many other industries) use health care subsidies as a lure.
I studied the constitution simply because I found it fascinating; the idea that a country did not have a ruling elite and that religion was best left to the choice of people (even if there was collateral damage in the early days of the republic).
What is interesting from that study is that the Executive was supposed to be the weakest part of government.
From my time there I think the optimal solution is President from one party and the senate controlled by the opposition; it forces compromise on many things such as federal appointments.
Just my take.
Just to say thanks for not shying away from stuff that splatters, even when there's no obvious IT angle. This is why El Reg is still here whilst a myiad of other attempts at technology news sites have come and gone (or survived as a brand whilst the editorial teams were swept out like a dead mouse left overnight on the kitchen floor by a very proud puss.)
At the risk of many down votes, this was not unexpected. The US elites detest 'flyover country' calling residents 'deplorables', etc. implying they are subhuman. The arrogance and disdain they have towards the 'deplorables' is will known and is rather corrosive. It does not help the US media is notoriously unreliable at the best of times and has not exactly done their best work over the last decade or so.
The last election had many issues with dodgy counting in at least 6 states (Stalin noted he who counts the votes has the power) with a serious lack of any attempt of an investigation by anyone particularly at the state level. The courts have generally refused to step, generally tossing the cases on procedural grounds not on the merits. The legislatures in at least 3 of these states are furious. In Georgia there is chatter of impeaching the governor and secretary of state. There are rumblings in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over the vote counting in those state's legislatures. The regular session of the legislatures generally starts sometime in January for the new term, so they are beginning their new session. Many feel the election was stolen by massive fraud and there is evidence of fraud in at least 6 states. What is not known is whether it was extensive enough to change the outcome of the election in each of these states.
"a serious lack of any attempt of an investigation by anyone"
If you have actual evidence of this, take it to the authorities.
Or, if you prefer, I offer the immortal words from Usenet: "Post proof or retract". But you will do neither, for the same reason that Trump & minions/sycophants can not.
Have standards really fallen so far?
Few of the fake news crew seem shy about posting their bs all over. It's no point of pride.
Trump had his days (many days) in court and got precisely nowhere. When it came to testifying on oath, nothing; it was all theatre for the press and 'hearings' where the rumours flew unchecked. But the Kraken turned out to be a myth. It's just graceless, sore losing at this point, except that a woman is dead.
At least the same loss of support that BLM suffered when violence broke out will happen to the PBs and co, now.
You are not being cynical enough, my friend. No conspiracy that large could exist because of the secret.
"Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
People can and will and do talk. If the election was really stolen from Trump we would know about by now. It takes less than 6 seconds for email to travel halfway around the planet. If the proof were out there it surely didn't land in everyone's Spam Folder.
When in doubt use Occam's Razor. One of these scenarios is more likely to be true than the other:
A.) A national election was rigged through a broadly backed Conspiracy that crossed Local, State, and Federal jurisdictions and therefore required the cooperation of hundreds or thousands of people. And of all of those people not a single one has come forward, been caught in a lie, or made any other form of mistake important enough to give up the game.
B.) When faced with an insurmountable challenge to their world view thousands of US citizens have chosen to (once again) prove that Joseph Goebbels was correct when he said: "People would rather believe an unconvincing lie than an inconvenient truth."
So, ask yourself "Am I a Philosopher (Lover of Wisdom) or am I an Ostrich with it's head in the sand?" It is hard, hard thing to do. Yet it must be done if you really wish to carry on one way or the other. Other wise you are not carrying. You are being carried.
and adding to a) - has anyone noted that rigged elections are overwhelmingly rigged by incumbents - because, you know, they are kind of in power. If the Democrats managed to rig elections when not in power, in states they didn't control, that's either moon-landing levels of clever conspiracy, or ggling incomptence by Donald Trump...What would Friar Occam think?
The arrogance and disdain they have towards the 'deplorables' is will known and is rather corrosive.
Well, they proved us right, they ARE deplorables. When somebody shows you repeatedly what they are, believe them. Hard NOT to feel superior to trumpanzees, and impossible not to disdain them. I am a resident of that "flyover country", and while I love my midwestern area, there are some deplorables I laugh at daily. The ones with the tattered TRUMP signs still bleaching in the sun.
This post has been deleted by its author
I did think the other day when Trump's phone call with the Georgian SoS was published that some conservatives and Republicans would seize the opportunity to put some distance between themselves and the more incompetent, venal and unsympathetic extremes that Trump embodies. But having done pretty much everything short of standing in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shooting someone, it's apparent his supporters and enablers have no shame for him, or themselves.
They need to find some if America is to survive in any meaningful way. Today's rally may narrow his base a little, but it's still far too big.
About all a thousand people can do "together" is rush a building. Ever try to coach a sports team? And they actually have a stated, specific common goal with known rules to achieve it!
The color revolution playbook? Again it was interesting to compare & contrast yesterday's events with those during Ukraine's peaceful protests. Start with a relatively peaceful crowd, fire a few shots, then coup in a can. Same as those protests spread, ie there were videos of mobs shouting at police stations, then something triggers the crowd.. And then the crowd is inside the police station, helping themselves to the weapons in the station armory. Those kinds of situations can escalate very fast, and why law enforcement does crowd psychology to de-escalate rather than escalate.
It looks like the Scottish polis will be the first to arrest Trump. He has booked a US military flight to Prestwick on the 19th to escape the Biden inauguration. It's currently illegal to travel to Scotland for non-essential reasons. Nobody here likes him, not even his relatives.
As the owner of two loss making businesses in Scotland Trump can work from home - ie not Scotland.
Samantha Bee had a hilarious skit labelled, "The Original Trump Haters". I posted the link and got a lot of abuse from New Yorkers who all said, Hey, we are the original Trump haters!
Having recently watched a detailed doc on Hitler/s rise to power I was waiting for the Reichstag fire, but Trump couldn't even get that right. You burn or blow up Congress at night and blame it on the opposition, not incite a bunch of losers to invade it. Thankfully Trumpolini can preen like Il Duce, but he's neither as smart or as capable as his predecessors.
What's amazing to me is, nutjob Trump SAID, 6 months ago in an interview on Axios, that he'd agree with the election results unless they went against him, but if they went against him they must be fraudulent, and he would have his supporters (meaning both political supporters and the MAGA ones) prevent transfer of power. I mean, both running for office and in office, again and again he'd say something that sounds unbelievable, like the ramblings of a lunatic (not the lies and conspiracy theories, the "if this happens, then I'm going to do this" type statements); people would not take what he said seriously because of how off-the-wall it sounded; he'd do exactly what he said he'd do... next time he'd say something unbelievable, people would be back to not believing it.
A note on Trump's constant repetitions of lies... his book "The Art of the Deal", dealt more with how to be deceptive and basically trick people into getting the deal you want more than anything. One of the tricks was that if someone repeats a lie long enough, that they'll get whoever they are doing business with to believe it, and it will then become the truth (so you can screw over your business partners). When this was brought up early in his campaign, I assumed it was figurative (screw over your business partner by claiming a building is worth 100 grand more than it is until they believe it and it's then "truth"..), took until later in his campaign before I realized he's totally mentally ill and really does think by repeating a lie he wants to be true he thinks he can make it true.
What I think is amazing about this is this block of supporters that believe every single verifiably false and fraudulent statement nutjob Trump tells them to.. they think he tells the truth about everything, and literally every news source on the planet lies whenever it disagrees with nutjob Trump's false claims; US news because (according to these people) every US news agency that disagrees with nutjob Trump's false statements are "liberal" (I know it makes zero sense, but these are not sensible people), and foreign news... well, they don't watch it anyway, but they're usually also extreme xenophobes so ... oh I don't even know what the excuse is on this one, there's no logic behind this shit anyway. Even the stuff where Trump's on tape saying something rude, he'll claim he didn't say it, these supporters can be shown the clip of him saying whatever, the clip of nutjob Trump saying "I did not say that", and they will seriously believe he did not say that, like the ultimate 1984 doublethink. (1 round of this happening, with the supporters claiming the clip was fabricated... it was from the Apprentice, so then they claimed it had been edited... then people found 10 year old DVR and tape recordings of the original airing, at which point the supporters STILL somehow claimed that... I don't know, that his opponents had like time travelled I guess?.. I don't even know what they thought then, but it was still not enough to convince them he said what he said.)
The fascist mob has started to attack the US democracy, with the support of a President who betrayed his oath to protect it. It's a try to start a civil war.
It isn't a matter of Republicans or Democrats anymore, it's now democracy's defenders vs homegrown terrorists.
This was a planned coup and insurrection. Capitol security was inexplicably weak and ineffective. US military refused to release the National Guard until so ordered by the President Donald Trump after the damage was done. From reports by officials inside the Capitol terrorists were searching for the Electoral College State vote certificates. As could be expected President Trump convinced radical followers to do his dirty work for him.
US military refused to release the National Guard until so ordered by the President Donald Trump after the damage was done.
It was Mike "Lawful Evil" Pence who did that (and has the authority to do so), the Orange Oaf wouldn't have lifted a finger to thwart these 'fine people' in any way.
Storm in a teacup. Just a way of the establishment drawing a line under Trump, in case he wants to come back in 4 years. Actually I quite like Trump, about as much as I can like any other rich privileged person... the majority of the global establishment wanted to go one way (a new way)... where as Trump and the rest wanted to go another way (the old way), which in my opinion included around a little less than half of the US.
Now the 'new way' group will have to work their socks off to make the 'new way' irreversible, they have just 4 years to achieve as much as possible. All the old western countries have crucified their economies to push through as much structural change as possible during this crisis, and will continue to use it in the future.
Here in the UK, enormous changes to planning laws later this year will allow permitted development of any city/town center shops and offices, turning them into thousands of redeveloped residential homes for inner town/city living. Private car ownership will rapidly decline due to rising costs. Automated electric taxis, and electric home deliveries will take their place.
I can't really blame the US for pushing back against this change, Continental North America has over 300 years of unconventional oil reserves available, there is no need for the US to change anything, and change is uncomfortable. Never-the-less, Trump was rather naughty thinking the US could hold back the rest of the world from making this change, whilst attempting to control all the major global oil reserves, (barring Russia).
So wait a minute...I don't get it. I thought we all agreed to go with the 'BLM/Antifa infiltrators pretending to be Trump supporters and rioting to make the Republican's look bad' excuse? If we are going to change to 'It's all Greta Thunberg's fault' I think I should have got a memo about it - not have to read about it first on some random UK IT site.
"Continental North America has over 300 years of unconventional oil reserves available,"
Take a look at what's happening in the Laptev sea and then decide if you think that continuing to burn that oil is a good idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/27/sleeping-giant-arctic-methane-deposits-starting-to-release-scientists-find
This has been increasingly on climate scientists' radar since 2004 when the first "impossible" methane seeps were found and the consequences of runaway methane clathrate releases (assuming it doesn't just stop with Laptev) are....... permian extinction-level
There are millions of them who will believe anything a bombastic speaker will tell them to . They have this thing about hyperbole and can be sucked in easily by conspiracy theories and fake promises. Just witness those tele-evangelists and their followers on tv. DISGUSTING.
Keep them uneducated, poor and feed them lies, brainwash them and they are yours for the asking. (Fox new et al)
What hypocracy from the Senators, when they were raising objections ! Sycophancy at its best was on display by the scumbag peoples' representatives.
Ditto the Brexshit voters in the UK. (looking at you BoJo - will do anything for power and thousands may die). Watching that Mogg on Tv gives me the creeps and nightmares.
Anonymous, Because.
Surely there is some mistake. I expected to read that it was a mostly peaceful protest, or should they have burned and looted to get that description?
I expect we will hear of the police brutality of shooting someone and look forward to various attention seekers and sports personalities (yeah same thing) taking the knee.
I assume Biden and Harris are already working on a fund for bailing out anyone who was arrested or charged?
Maybe people reading the lovely suggestions of how to remove the president for the last few years have finally taken it to heart?
Like brexit surely the large minority should dictate the result and the majority are just idiots or influenced by foreign powers?
I am sure there is more
Yes, this is the very awkward part here, CNN for example is showing the direct comparison between the large amounts of troops around federal monuments during peaceful BLM (Black Lives Matter) protests earlier this year, the entire DC National Guard was called out ahead of time then; the amounts of tear gas used, the arrests; don't forget about the violence against peaceful protestors who were out 100% legally, because nutjob Trump could not wait 10 minutes for curfew to be photographed in front a church (at which point the tactics used would still not have been justified but at least they could say they were technically violating curfew, rather than 100% legal protestors being roughed up and gassed.) Contrast to having violent insurrections breaking into federal buildings -- and not monuments, in-use buildings; some armed, with the intent on destruction and disrupting the election process; no action taken after curfew, very little tear gas used at all, they just kind of eventually pretty much escorted people out, astonishingly few arrests. At least the FBI is going to try to track these people down and arrest them (I assume the ones that were in the building; the ones that stayed out on the lawn, I don't agree with but I'd view as legitimate protestors.)
As usual, I'll blame Mark Z and the other social media bros. Not for turning normal people into idiots, but for amplifying the voice of idiots better than anyone has managed to do it before in the sordid history of this species. Yet it's scary, how easy you can stoke the idiots. A silver lining though: Trump chose to end his reign in the most spectacular facepalm yet. And it's quite telling that it's only now all those ass-lickers, right up to the greatest lick (...) Pence, denounce Trump, not because it's the right thing but because he's lost almost all his power. I sense the power of sycophancy is strong with home sapiens...
p.s. I do hope they "lock him up!", e.g. for inciting violence. But it's not gonna happen.
"This incitement was a last-ditch effort by the president to retain his power and position..."
I wish that were true, but I'm afraid there will be more attempts to retain power
There's lots of noise about invoking the 25th (Amendment, a process whereby the president can be relieved of duty). If it didn't happen last night/early morning, it's not happening at all. Pence should have marched to the White House after adjournment and invoked the 25th then and there. (Hold my gavel, watch this!)
It was nothing more, *nor nothing less*, than an attempted coup d'etat.
But by whom?
This will not be forgotten!
Unlike history. Nothing says 'Democracy' quite like collating lists of enemies of the state. Or just your political opponents. But now should be a time to rejoice, a time for healing, so form the 'Truth and Retaliation' committee, stat!
iT angle! Yey!
I'm sure there were several suprised legislators. But remember a while back, one cabinet member was asked about 'wiping a computer'. To which she replied 'like with a cloth?'.
Sadly legislators aren't always entirely IT literate. Or actively work against IT security policy, like running your own mail server from home. Or there's practicality. So UK NHS staff have keycards for access control to their computers. Some wander off leaving those in the computers, some don't.
But shutting down isn't always the safest option. So I saw a report that someone took the drives from computers in Pelosi's office. Or someone could just take a laptop. But being IT types, we know there are options, like encryption, or working via VMs so there's no sensitive data on devices. Or I guess it'd be possible to have a sysadmin/security admin's 'panic button' that remotely shut down all connected devices. But that assumes legislator's won't do a Clinton and ignore/actively work against those policies.
But there's also the small issue of physical documents. Legislators probably have secure document cabinets to store classified stuff, but that assumes the docs are in there, not left on desks.. And will be a challenge for the Capitol's security officers to try and figure out how much of that has gone missing.
I know what I'm going to say will be unpopular, mainly because it takes a middle, analytical ground, but here goes!
First, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking in this instance about incitement - that's something separate.
One of the main issues for me is the definition of misinformation. Who decides - and, more importantly, who should decide? Defining something as "misinformation" is an inherently political activity, whether it relates to an election or what shape the Earth is. As has been noted previously, not so many years ago, what many of us here were saying about Five Eyes surveillance was regarded as misinformation, until Edward Snowden came along. Should we have been "no-platformed" for it? It troubles me that a certain political view (that the 2020 US Presidential election was unfairly run) is being removed from debate by private companies. This gives huge power to completely unaccountable bodies with interests that are often diametrically opposed to political freedom. Some of you say, 'Well, there are other alternatives",by which I assume you mean domains owned by the people with views Facebook, Reddit, Twitter etc don't agree with. However, this only kicks the can a bit further - the search engines then have the power to prevent access. These are important points that need adult debate, not knee-jerk responses. Political pamphleteering has a long and influential history - should we really be using the Internet to prevent it.
A second point is that, at the time of writing, these companies are banning the duly elected President of the United States. Yes, he's bonkers, but this strays very much across the boundaries between the political and the commercial spheres. Can we really countenance private companies having this amount of power of political discourse without having accountability? It probably goes without saying that I don't think so. If Trump can be banned from these products, then any of us can for any reason - is that the world we want to live in?
Valid points, but some of them are quite limited. For instance, you spend some time on the power of a private company to ban someone. Specifically, you say "If Trump can be banned from these products, then any of us can for any reason - is that the world we want to live in?". That's already the world we live in. Facebook can ban you for violations of their terms of service, and they get to write the terms of service. That's because Facebook built and run the entire network. They get to choose, subject to laws, who they want or don't want. If you don't like this, don't post on Facebook. If you do like this, don't post on Facebook; they're really creepy.
In general, I am willing to accept a lot more misinformation than I or anyone else would like, but primarily because every mechanism I can think of that suppresses the misinformation will either get abused or neglected. Probably both. However, places you can post stuff shouldn't be under an obligation to give me their platform if they don't want to. If The Register's moderators don't like my comments, because I'm abusive or offensive or I like Python and they hate it, they have the right to ban me. They have this right because it's their comment section, which they have no obligation to provide for me. In the same way, I sometimes allow comments on blogs I write. If you come to one of my sites and post one, you have no freedom of speech whatsoever. I will read your comment, and if I don't like it, because it's spam or offensive or I'm feeling grumpy, it doesn't go up. There are places on the internet where you can post anything you want and it basically never comes down. You want to post something which others keep taking down, go there. Or you can set up your own site, which is pretty easy and has very few restrictions. If Facebook tried to control the entire internet and lock you out, I'd have a massive problem with it. As long as the thing Facebook locks you out of is Facebook, that's their right.
One cannot call a leaderless mob an insurrection, or sedition, or any other serious anything. Shirley the horned guy wasn't their leader either.
They were so disorganized, they didn't even loot or burn the place. It was really just a primary school sight seeing tour. (Yes, I know one person stole a letter from a garbage bin and another carried off a lectern, but I think he got tired and downed it).
I don't think anyone will get serious charges, except for the policeman who (Possibly rightfully) shot the lady.
I have observed many a US Presidential Circus, but this one was the most entertaining by far.
Today, Sunday, January 10, 2010, at 11 AM Washington D. C. time, President Donald Trump will address a crowd about to engage in what is called the "Save America March".
Maybe this time it will be peaceful, and the crowd will not try to break into any buildings. Yeah, right.
EDIT: My mistake. While what I saw was a YouTube livestream, it was a livestream of a recording of the "Save America March" of July 6. So a repetition of the events of that day is not imminent.
It occurs to me that people who were Trump supporters in the Cabinet, and who supported his claims of voter fraud until after the storming of congress, might just be resigning the cabinet in order to avoid having to make the decision as to whether or not to support a 25th amendment attempt to remove Trump. As they have resigned, they are no longer in a position to be required to make that decision, so cannot be criticised for whichever side they would have been on.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
