back to article Loser Trump is no longer useful to Twitter, entire account deleted over fears he'll whip up more mayhem

Twitter on Friday permanently deleted President Trump's personal account, @realDonaldTrump, over fears the election loser's tweets could incite further mayhem in America. "After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted …

  1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    1. croc

      Re: An elephant in the room

      Yeah, that was a dumbass move... She should've known better.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An elephant in the room

        Yeah. Pelosi should have known better. The orange fuckwit will be sopissed off if he finds out the US military gave him a Fisher-Price activty centre instead of the launch codes 4 years ago.

        1. CuChulainn Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          That reminded me of... Dilbert.

          https://imgur.com/gallery/IrcBR0P

          1. David Shaw

            Re: An elephant in the room

            @CuChulainn: on-message with Dilbert, who's sensible creator is now suggesting that The Orange Idiot should resign immediately, amongst other relevant points. SA previously supported/interpreted bigly for right-pondians.

            He's a bit worried about FOS

            link here: http://www.scottadamssays.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Episode-1248-Scott-Adams-President-Trumps-Final-Scorecard-Vatican-Blackout.mp3

            or at least 'twas there a few minutes ago, no guarantee that it will be there later. Scott is worried.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Boffin

          Re: An elephant in the room

          Too many commentards here that are probably on their last functioning brain cell.

          One must look beyond the 'Orange Man Bad' mantra and take a more holistic approach.

          Pelosi is more evil than Trump. She is a swamp dweller who believes she is beyond the rules. You need to remember is that Trump was elected in response to Obama and his ilk. Trump's real vice was in believing that he could drain the swamp and openly attacked the professional politician.

          Pelosi knows Trump won't do anything and raised the 'issue' of nuclear codes as a way to make Trump seem more deranged. Not hard after his speech, but post Congress approving the Electoral Votes, the next two years are going to be rough. What Pelosi wants is Trump to not be able to run in 2024.

          So when you look at the facts and see the larger picture... you learn to see the true motives.

          1. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: An elephant in the room

            I have no problems allowing Pelosi the pleasure of telling Trump his balls are being cut and all that is left is the tiny mushroom.

            On the other hand we also know he is nothing like the stable genius he wants you us believe.

            He has managed to lose both houses and the WH in just four years, is that something he actually understands himself.

            He made me happy though.

          2. Wellyboot Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            How would America vote if someone along the lines of Václav Havel1 managed to raise the $Billions needed for a campaign?

            1Anti communist writer with a belief in local civic democracy who spent years in prison for his principles and was willing to give unpopular pronouncements on national domestic problems during his 14 years as Czechoslovakian and then Czech President.

          3. Robert 22

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Drain the swamp? In Trump's universe, this means getting rid of people who have any combination of ethics and competence.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An elephant in the room

      Yet the article doesn't state the outcome of that discussion.

      Does he still have the access to still up shit?

      1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        Re: An elephant in the room

        Does he still have the access to still up shit?

        Twitter? No.

        Push the red button? Well the briefcase has to be nearby and he has access to the "biscuit". So, yeah. He still can launch the nukes.

        When it comes to Donald, there is a very, very fine line between "going down fighting" vs "going down fighting AND taking everyone else with me". I think I am more afraid of the latter.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          You're forgetting: whatever else Trump is, he's also a massive coward.

          That's why his most recent tweets are all positively designed to be read out in court when he's charged with sedition.

          Pressing "the Button" would no doubt be fun, but it would also expose him personally to considerable danger. He's not going to do that.

          1. katrinab Silver badge
            Mushroom

            Re: An elephant in the room

            I don't think The Button is hard-wired to an actual warhead. Flying a nuclear warhead to hit a particular target requires a bit more skill than just pressing a button. My guess is that The Button sends a verified command to a team of highly skilled fighter pilots who would carry out the orders, or not, as the case may be.

            1. chivo243 Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Dr. Strangelove? Even back then it wasn't just pressing a button, codes were sent, verified and re-verified in triplicate on the delivery plane.

            2. smudge
              Facepalm

              Re: An elephant in the room

              My guess is that The Button sends a verified command to a team of highly skilled fighter pilots who would carry out the orders, or not, as the case may be.

              There is no "Button". The case contains authentication codes to provide assurance to the recipients that the orders to launch have originated from the President.

              And fighter pilots don't fly nuclear missiles :)

              1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                But Trump still fired commanders at the DoD and replaced them with yes men.

                So... do you feel lucky?

                1. mevets Bronze badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  That was mainly to make sure the military didn't interfere with his plans to start a civil war. Who is he going to nuke? Russia, uh, no, his boss told him not to. Gina, no his other boss told him not to? SF, ok that is a possibility.

                  Really the only targets for the `great orange jobbie` are in the USA, which while nobody deserves that sort of attack, some places ore more deserving than others. 49.5%.

                  1. First Light Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Iran, hello! Iran, Iran, Iran. He wants desperately to nuke Iran.

                    1. rcxb Silver badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      > He wants desperately to nuke Iran.

                      His only objection to Iran is that they made a deal with Obama. Trump had an easy path to escalate hostilities to all-out-war with Iran when they retaliated for Solemani's assassination, but instead he signaled his cowardice and lied to the US public claiming no US soldiers were injured to defuse the situation instead.

              2. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
                Mushroom

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Not any more... But there was a time where strike aircraft were designed for just that *cough* Tornado *cough* but they were more for tactical nukes to strike at military targets rather than saturation bombing.

                Nuke icon. Obvs.

              3. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese
                Coat

                Re: An elephant in the room

                And fighter pilots don't fly nuclear missiles :)

                Indeed. Maj TJ "King" Kong was a bomber pilot

            3. W@ldo

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Sorry, it's moronic to even think a president, ANY president, can unilaterally initiate a nuclear strike. There is a procedure for any such action and you would have to also have consent from others that are not politicians.

              Go back to your Netflix binge watching and Twitter is my life--what is funny is folks on twitter will run out of Trump stuff and need to find another target. Eventually, you will start consuming your own.

              1. vtcodger Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                You folks can find a lot of information -- much of which is certainly correct -- on US nuclear security procedures and interlocks at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link. Might want to read it.

                1. Xalran

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Except maybe for NK Phat Kim and the Iranians, the Two Man Rule applies in all the other countries that have Nukes.

                  It's a basic safety so that an unhinged president ( lets say : An Orange Clown in a White House ) can't vitrify the world.

                  At this point in time, if The Orange Clown request a nuclear strike, no commanding officer in the Army, the Air Force or the Navy will follow the order, because they know it's an illegal order given by an unhinged loser.

              2. smudge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Sorry, it's moronic to even think a president, ANY president, can unilaterally initiate a nuclear strike. There is a procedure for any such action and you would have to also have consent from others that are not politicians.

                Depends on what you mean by "consent".

                The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and no one has the power to legally disobey or not carry out any orders that he gives. This was discussed at length early on in Trump's presidency, when a nuclear exchange with North Korea looked very possible. On TV in the UK this morning, we had an American political academic asserting that this is still the case. The system was designed in the Cold War to enable retaliation against the Soviets in the few minutes that may have remained for everyone.

                If you equate "consent" to "folllowing orders without thought or question", then you are correct. However, most people would say that "consent" requires some form of positively "opting in" or "agreeing".

                One would hope that anyone in receipt of such orders from Trump over the next 11 days would question them. However, it is undeniable that that would undoubtedly lead to a court martial. And I would guess that with the military's need to maintain discipline and not have every order questioned, the outcome of that court martial would not be as straightforward as you or I would hope.

                1. W@ldo

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Sorry, the protocol does not work that way. It is not disobeying to not provide the consent needed to trigger nuclear response. Your BBC propaganda station(s) (note, you have state controlled media) are full of bad information. .

                  1. smudge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Your BBC propaganda station(s) (note, you have state controlled media) are full of bad information

                    And presumably the Washington Post also?

                    "Anyone who attempts to contravene a valid, authentic and legal (in the sense of whether the strike package was legal, and all off-the-shelf nuclear strike packages are pre-vetted for legality to some degree) order would be doing so illegally and risk the charge of mutiny. Now, if POTUS ordered a nuclear first strike out of the blue against China or Russia, there would be questions about legality. But if, for example, he ordered a limited nuclear strike against targets in Iran, such as the hardened and buried Fordow enrichment facility, or a complex in North Korea, it would be very difficult to argue that the president did not have the legal right to do that out of the blue if he or she deemed it in America’s national interest."

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/08/there-is-no-legal-way-stop-trump-ordering-nuclear-strike-if-he-wants-expert-says/

                    1. jmch Silver badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      There is also a grey area around whether the nuclear strike is an act of war. If its retaliatory (soviet era scenario), its a response to a de facto war.

                      If it's a first strike, it could be illegal if construed as an act of war, since although POTUS is commander in chief of the military, the military is subservient to the civilian government, and the only US body that can legally declare war is Congress.

                      1. John Jennings Silver badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        'and the only US body that can legally declare war is Congress.'

                        And how did Korea, Veitnam, and every intervention since work out then? Since Korea, there have been plans placed upon POTUS desk for the use of Nukes.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      And you quote as your source a vanity newspaper owned by an exceptionally sleazy multi-billionaire who hates Trump with a real passion. In fact even more than the lovvies at the BBC and the Guardian

                      The Washington Post ceased to be a serious non-partisan newspaper almost 20 years ago. Take this from someone who read it daily for the previous two decades.

                      You do know that they wrote pretty much the same kind of garbage stories about Reagan in the early 1980's. Will a deranged Ronnie Press the Button. Except back then they were almost all in fringe looney outlets like The Nation. Because back then both the NYT and the WaPo actually had real reporters who knew what the f*ck they were writing about. Not the intellectually third rate liberal arts majors who went to the right colleges and have the right woke credentials which is all the NYT and WaPo hires nowadays. And who wrote the worthless story you quoted.

                      Many big scholarly books have been written on this very subject over the last 60 plus years. The President does not have absolute discretion, in fact almost none, and very much by deliberate design. Its a complex interlocking decision chain. As it was when it was the General Secretary of the CPSU on the other side.

                      1. First Light Silver badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        It's rich calling Bezos an "exceptionally sleazy multi-billionaire" as opposed to - the exceptionally sleazy, deranged, malignant narcissist, faux-billionaire tax-cheat, insurrectionist grifter Prez.

                  2. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Under law, BBC is independent from the gov't. If you've seen "Yes, Minister" (you probably haven't), there's an episode or two there that humorously let you know there's still some influence; but the gov't does not run BBC in any meaningful way.

                    People are not worried about the president unilaterally using the nuclear football etc. based on anything from the BBC; this stuff with the nuclear football is widely presented to the public as the president pushing a button, the nukes launch (of course this is silly, even if it was having a machine launch the nukes with no verification, a button is not enough to tell how many to launch and what to launch them at); and since the description of even what it really looks like, what it does, and how it works in any sort of detail, are secret, there's no actual information to say "Well, no, here's how it really works." (I would assume like you do that it involves launch codes and humans in the loop, but there's not a document to point to to tell people "here, read this.")

                    1. Weylin

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Richard Sharp, the BBC's new governor is a former advisor of Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson.

                      1. 45RPM Silver badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        You know, I run teams of developers who write software for… well, never you mind what they write software to do. But one of those developers used to write games for the Atari 400/800, Vic20 and Speccy. It doesn’t follow that that he’s bringing those skills of game design to the more serious work and rather more powerful hardware that he’s writing software for now. Everyone has a past.

                        The BBC certainly isn’t fault free - but, if anything, I’d say that it’s leaning rather too rightward to accommodate climate change denying, trump supporting wingnuts. That said, on the key issues, it’s broadly correct - it can still be trusted to fact check the news.

                        The editorial is a bit iffy though, granted!

                        1. Combustable Lemon

                          Re: An elephant in the room

                          > You know, I run teams of developers who write software for… well, never you mind what they write software to do.

                          But i want to know now, you've gone and made it all mysterious.

                        2. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: An elephant in the room

                          I feel that one sure-fire of telling the BBC is relatively impartial is the Left complaining it's too right wing and the Right complaining it's too left wing. So, fairly balanced then - ish.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: An elephant in the room

                            Ooh 2 downvotes. That'll be one from the left and one from the right :)

                    2. HelpfulJohn Bronze badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Not true.

                      I saw, in the wonderful documentary "White House Down", *exactly* how the "Nuclear Footballs" work. For a start, they aren't shaped like *real* footballs, they are not spherical but are more like USAlien handballs in that they are little suitcase-like portable PC's with internal modems or WiFi. They have voices and little screens and cute buttons. At least I think I remember one of them having a nice, gentle lady voice. Maybe I'm conflating that with the P.O.S. robot ladies in my supermarket?

                      I suppose it is appropriate that they are more USAlien handball shaped as they are intended for use by USAlien Presidents and those guys have possibly never even seen a real football.

                      Anyway, it doesn't matter whether the President launches a strike as the other, slightly saner guys can blow up the missiles while they are in-flight using the robotic tri-headed doggy, Cerberus. Unless they didn't have the funds to repair it after the documentary?

                      Maybe the new President should look into that one?

                      .

                  3. Tomato42

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    you spelled "deep state gubbimint" wrong

                    I know that the past 50 years of Republican propaganda ingrained in you "government service == bad", but that's because for those 50 years Republicans made damn sure to make it so, not because government actions are inherently bad

                    I'll wait 2 weeks for your reply, as I'm sure that so wholehearted opposition of government projects means you use carrier pigeons for your communications, not the DoD developed Internet

                  4. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Fox has been trump's propaganda channel far more effectively than any state run channel could ever be.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      All MSM in the US is highly partisan.

                      It ceased to be news anymore after the major consolidation of networks that Bill Clinton made possible.

                      Now it's just entertainment and propaganda.

                      1. HausWolf

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        You mean since reagan allowed the fairness doctrine to go away. It use to be that at the very least a half hearted attempt to present both sides of an argument had to be made.

                2. Wellyboot Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  An out of the blue order to launch1 would result in a lot of Generals2 having a WTF moment and an instant conference call to NORAD.

                  As said above any generals present can give their military opinion but that is all, (faced with a direct order from their commander in chief they can only obey, resign or mutiny) there is no process for ratification by any other body as the system was designed over 50 years ago to guarantee a sufficient nuclear response would launch in the time given by ICBM early warning systems.

                  Having said that, to reach a position in the joint chiefs all will have served under half a dozen incumbents and know fully the possible implications required in defending the nation will attempt a delay (to at least warm up the rest of the military if nothing else) and removing a sitting president takes as long as is needed to get 15 cabinet signatures on a Section-4, 25th amendment letter, everyone has a point where self interest takes priority.

                  1At whom? pre programmed missiles will be aimed at countries with similar and they'd ruin his property portfolio, picking new targets will require some time to generate comfirm & program into the weapons.

                  2or Admirals for the subs

                  1. James O'Shea

                    I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                    Not NORAD. NORAD's the defense guys. They have no links to the subs, the bombers, or the land-based missiles, despite what you might have seen in Holyweird pieces of fluff like War Games. NORAD's only comment would be. to say that there weren't any inbounds detected at this time.

                    It used to be that if the headquarters of SAC, in Omaha, Nebraska, got removed from the command network, launch authority would go to whoever had duty as Alice in the Looking Glass aircraft, but Alice is grounded now that there are no more Looking Glass aircraft; instead. launch command authority goes to the US Navy's TACAMO ('TAke Charge And Move Out') aircraft of which one is over the Atlantic and one over the Pacific at all times; another bit of Holyweird fluff, By Dawn's Early Light, was set in the days when Looking Glass still flew. James Earl Jones was Alice, Martin Landau was the president, and the Russians were obnoxious. In the absence of inbound vampires (hostile missiles are 'vampires' in USN-speak) the TACAMOs will probably request authorization before giving the order to launch, and no one man, not even the president, can authorize a launch by himself unless there's an emergency, where 'emergency' is someone at the National Military Command Center in Washington saying something like "Vampire, vampire, many vampires inbound, confidence is high" and NORAD confirming that, TACAMO won't give the go order without at least two members of National Command Authority saying so. The Prez is just one. The Veep is another, as is the SecDef, the SecState, and either the chairman or all, I can't remember which and can't be arsed to look it up, of the Joint Chiefs. Does anyone actually think that any of them would go with the Prez on this? And this is the one thing that he _can't_ just order, even as commander in chief. And if he just fires the Joint Chiefs, etc, when they won't back him, TACAMO isn't going to take orders from substitutes when there's no emergency. He could fire the guys in the TACAMO aircraft, but they'd just return to base, and their reliefs would also just sit on their hands. What's he going to do, fire the entire USN? The land-based missiles, bombers, and subs will sit unless they get Emergency War Orders from a valid, authorized, source: TACAMO or NMCC or a valid substitute. What is likely toi happen is that someone at NMCC calls the Veep and asks about the 25th Amendment while someone else calls the Marines at 8th and I in DC and a Marine battalion goes and sits on DJT until President-for-less-than-two-weeks Pence (or, if Pence is fired, Pelosi...) tells them to let him up.

                    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

                      Re: I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                      That's a good explaination of how the chain of command & launch verification process works. A lot of thought (over many years) has gone into ensuring there are no grey areas or shortcuts around nuclear weapon deployment.

                      I think everyone agrees a launch order would lead to the 25-A in short order.

                      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                        Re: I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                        A lot of thought (over many years) has gone into ensuring there are no grey areas or shortcuts around nuclear weapon deployment.

                        Yup. "Right lads, this is Mark 39. He's a 3-4 Megaton device, but don't worry, it's packed with features to ensure it can't be armed or detonated without proper authorization. Watch what happens when I enter this obviously wrong code.. 0000000"

                        Oops.

                        But this is a great read-

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)

                        Albeit somewhat alarming at the number of potential near misses & lessons learned the hard way. The story of the Damascus Titan incident it centers around is a fascinating mix of heroism and near farce.

                        But then there's politics. Pelosi's statement was embarassing given the checks & balances around nuclear weapons safety, including how the chain of command fits in. So in the absence of a functional President or VP, authorisation would pass to her.. which is almost as scarey.

                    2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

                      Re: I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                      +1

                      "There may be one finger on the trigger, but there are fifteen fingers on the safety catch" (anon)

                      That's from a thread that on pprune at the moment that has come to discuss the same.

                      https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/637927-trumps-swansong-possibly-war-iran-2.html#post10963562

                    3. This post has been deleted by its author

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Wrong. Any member of the US armed forces can disobey an "unlawful" order? If the President ordered the Sec Def to order the Joint Chiefs to attack Britain without any provocation detected, they can and would refuse to comply with the order. Period. Generals are not monkeys in the US. Maybe that is not the case in GB.

                    If on the other hand a massive launch of Nuclear missiles were detected coming from China or Russia (0.0000 percent probability that would occur) and he authorized a launch, they would obey, except for a handful. Numerous tests over the past decade have shown that some launch crews in the missile silo have refused to launch even when they believe it was an actual attack happening, knowing that by turning the key it will be the end of human civilization.

                    The Democrats have been saying the "sky is falling" since before Trump was in office that he was a danger and might launch WMD's. It has not happened in the past four years and it won't happen in the next two weeks. And if you really believe it, then you have been bought and sold by the propaganda machine. Nancy Panic "Karen" Pelosi is just trying to continue to divide the country because she wasn't successful the first go around impeachment.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Nurse! He's out of bed again!

                      1. First Light Silver badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        Without any clothes on!

                  3. eldakka Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    and removing a sitting president takes as long as is needed to get 15 cabinet signatures on a Section-4, 25th amendment letter,
                    That's only true if the president agrees to the s.4 removal.

                    If the president disagrees, and the VP and cabinet persist, it is referred to a vote in congress, which must occur within 21 days, during which time the VP is acting president. Only if a 2/3rds majority in both houses is reached will they be removed. If after 21-days no vote is taken or a 2/3rds majority isn't reached, the president resumes their duties.

                    Of course, AFAIK (and wikipedia is silent on), I guess it's possible for the VP and cabinet to immediately issue another s.4 letter and get the president suspended for another 21-days (there's a bit of wiggle room of when the 21-day clock starts, it could be up to 6 days after the initial s.4 letter is sent, so up to 27 days really if everyone drags their feet to the fullest extent of the various 'clocks') ad Infinitum.

                    Note also that there must be a VP in office to do this, so if the VP were to be, errr, removed in some way, then an s.4 is not possible at all until the position is filled through a process that could be drawn out so long that there is no VP during the presidents tenure.

                    These all apply to the general case of removing a president under s.4, if a president with less than 27 days to server (e.g. Trump) is served an s.4, then that could effectively suspend them for the remainder of their presidency, even if they are never officially removed by congress.

                    1. katrinab Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      21 days takes us comfortably past the point where Pence as Acting President hands over the Big Nuclear Button to Biden.

                3. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

                  Re: An elephan"t in the room

                  "The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and no one has the power to legally disobey or not carry out any orders that he gives. "

                  In the wake of the Axios interview with nutjob Trump about 6 months ago -- where he said if he lost the election it was fraudulent, and when Jonathan Swan asked if he would cede power he made he clear he did not intend to (people claim surprise at the recent actions, but in this Axios interview he made it clear he'd use both legal methods and his MAGA supporters to try to hold onto power, and implied he'd use the military as well). In the wake of that, people did ask the military commanders if they would go along with Trump trying to use the military to hold power, and they said no. The replacement military heads are more Trump supporters to some extent, but they were also asked about this and made it clear they would not participate in a military coup.

                4. Palpy

                  Re: "No one can legally disobey the C in C":

                  "...no one has the power to legally disobey or not carry out any orders that he [the Commander in Chief] gives."

                  Sorry, that's wrong.

                  From a website on military careers, referencing Articles 90 - 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

                  "These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL (sic) orders. Not only should an unlawful order not be obeyed, obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders."

                  Essentially, this disallows military personnel from using "I was only following orders" to defend against allegations of criminal behavior.

                  If Trump as Commander-in-Chief issues an order which military personnel believe is unlawful, disobeying the order is not only allowed, it is mandatory. In practice, an order to launch nuclear weapons would be evaluated at the highest level of the military -- the generals, not the pilots -- and it would be evaluated very quickly. My guess is that the generals would refuse to allow the command to go forward unless they had very very clear evidence that there was a real attack on the US underway.

                  1. Palpy

                    Re: Oh hell, must back down

                    VOX writers Alex Ward and Jennifer Williams wrote that if Trump gave the order to launch, "he could not be overruled." In a slight modification, they also wrote "[Admiral Charles A.] Richard, the Stratcom commander, could also refuse to carry out the order if he felt it was illegal. But if he did so, Trump could just fire him and replace him with someone who would carry it out."

                    So my first comment was somewhat off-base: "the generals" can advise, but except for the Stratcom commander, none of them can actually overrule him. I wuz mostly wrong, with just a little right mixed in.

                    Full article: https://www.vox.com/22220989/trump-nuclear-codes-pelosi-impeachment

                  2. martinusher Silver badge

                    Re: "No one can legally disobey the C in C":

                    I read an anaylsis of this yesterday and it seems that the US system is set up to deliberately bypass the chain of command so, yes, Trump can lawfully order a 'strike package' on another country but at this time the unfortunate recipent would have to be Iran or North Korea. Failure to obey his command would be mutiny.

                    The good news is that you'd have to invoke a process to prosecute that mutiny and that process would spill over into the Biden administration which would put a stop to any proceedings. The bad news is that, unfortuantely, it requires the people in the chain of command to realize he's a complete nutcase and act appropriately, no guarantee given the number of people who voted for him.

                    The article that analyed this also noted that we're alone in having this capability. The Russians, for example, can't launch a strike just on Putin's say so.

                    1. hoola Silver badge

                      Re: "No one can legally disobey the C in C":

                      " it requires the people in the chain of command to realize he's a complete nutcase and act appropriately, no guarantee given the number of people who voted for him."

                      And this is the really scary thing, there enough people around who are supposed to be intelligent and in powerful positions that I would simply be able to guarantee that there would be a sane outcome. The age of Social Media has created so much division at really visceral levels that it is entirely within the realms of possibility that one nut-job at the top will have enough nut-job followers placed in the right positions that they simply do what they are told.

                      You only have to look at the hatred still going on around Brexit or Scottish independence to realise that it is a much wider malaise than Trump. Trump has just taken it to a more extreme level.

                      1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

                        Re: "No one can legally disobey the C in C":

                        Who actually fires the missiles though. It's not the president and it's not the generals.

                        The people who turn the key(s), press the buttons(s), override the safeties and all the rest are ordinary military personnel. They and anybody in the command chain between the president and the button could refuse to carry out the order quite legitimately.

                        You could argue that any of them could be replaced, but the point is that this would delay the launch. Perhaps for long enough for the order to be countermanded. Or perhaps long enough for Pence to invoke the 25th amendment.

                        Launching a nuke against anybody, even the likes of Iran would likely lead to worldwide armageddon. After all nobody wants to be late to the party. As such were Trump to even hint he we going to issue the order, let alone issue the order then it's likely that Pence an the rest of the cabinet would get the 25th through in double quick time if only for the sake of their own skins and that of their investment portfolios. Of course the minute that clause 4 is ratified by the cabinet then Pence becomes C in C and he can countermand the order.

                        It's all a bit shaky as to whether the launch would happen in this scenario, but I think it is unlikely.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Terminator

                Re: An elephant in the room

                The whole purpose of the thing is to allow a strike to be initiated in a situation where there may be a small number of minutes in which it can be so initiated, and/or where a large amount of the apparatus of government and the military command structure already does not exist, which parts are neither known in advance nor probably at the time. Whatever procedure there is has to work under those constraints.

                1. Number6

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  The President gives the order and gives his authorisation code. A bunch of people with him also have to give their codes to certify that he's not under duress and is in a suitable state of mind. In a real situation they would also presumably be privy to other information about the world situation and would also be receiving their own independent data to back up their assessment of the CinC's mental processes and the tactical situation. The process is designed so things can be done very quickly, but there are a few safeguards thrown in so it can't be done at the whim of a single person.

                2. katrinab Silver badge
                  Meh

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  I find it difficult to envisage a scenario where a Twitter-deprived President would know of such a scenario, and nobody in the military did.

                  "General. There's some terrorists organizing[sic] at 1355 Market St, San Francisco. Drop a nuke on them immediately."

                  1. James O'Shea

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Even the president can't authorize the use of nukes by himself, unless there is an emergency. The Air Force general in command of the bombers (and it would have to be bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs would have to be retargeted and in any case unscheduled missile launches would make the Russians and Chinese very nervous) would want the go order authorized by at least one other member of National Command Authority. The guys who actually fly the bombers would be looking for Emergency War Orders and after events dating back to the days of Bill Clinton will not be dropping anything anywhere, especially on American territory, without explicit, direct, orders... and even then they'd wonder why an AC-130 or some F-16s didn't go in instead.

                3. James O'Shea

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  That's why TACAMO and NMCC exist... and authorized substitutes for them. If there's an emergency, pre-existing Emergency War Orders go out, and the nukes fly. No emergency? You need proper authorization, and that means at least two of National Command Authority.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    That's why TACAMO and NMCC exist... and authorized substitutes for them. If there's an emergency, pre-existing Emergency War Orders go out, and the nukes fly.

                    That's what I thought. So the 'football' contains the President's authenticator, plus those EWOs. So an order would be an authenticated war plan/strike package, and the President's & NCA's authentication / authorizations. And attempting to order a strike off-menu would just delay things, and give more people in the chain of command the opportunity to refuse a potentially unlawful order.

              4. mevets Bronze badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Right, It is also moronic to think a band of toothless hillbillies could storm the Capitol building and force the entirety of the USA Congress and Senate into gas masks, crawling on the floor through an escape hatch.

                Unless I took a little too much acid on wed, I think that happened.

                Any prognostication on how the USA works, or more importantly fails, is just that.

                At this moment, nobody has any sense of what that authority structure in the USA is, and for that reason alone, the USA President must be removed. It probably wouldn't hurt to take down the Vice President for good measure. While they mightn't be in collusion, it seems there is an orbit of insanity between the two.

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  At this moment, nobody has any sense of what that authority structure in the USA is, and for that reason alone, the USA President must be removed. It probably wouldn't hurt to take down the Vice President for good measure.

                  I think anybody with a sense for the Constitution would know what the chain of command is, ie pretty much the same as it's always been. But you can also argue that all the attempts to bypass the Constitution and remove the Executive is pretty much the definition of 'coup'. Which of course was tried before with the fake 'Russiagate' nonsense & impeachment. And never being one to not double down on dumb, Pelosi's giving that another go.. But in only 9 days time, the Executive will be replaced by a new one.

                  But I guess it plays well to the peanut gallery, even if it has the potential to create some fun precedents.. Like impeach on what grounds? It's tenuous at best to suggest Trump planned the occupation, but also patently obvious that there were equally organised counter-protests aimed at removing Trump. Which is also an issue for last year's riots, or fiery but peaceful protests given Democrats actively expressed support for those protests.

                  See also-

                  https://www.rt.com/usa/512092-capitol-police-shooting-lawmakers-lynching/

                  US Representative Hank Johnson, who told a Navy admiral in 2010 that overpopulation could cause Guam to capsize, said the police shooting of a protester who breached the Capitol on Wednesday saved black lawmakers from being hung.

                  "I have no doubt that some of us who look like me would have been hanging from the railings of the third floor onto the House floor, swinging like fruit, strange fruit," Johnson (D-Georgia), who is black, told the Rev. Al Sharpton on Saturday in an MSNBC interview.

                  Err.. right. Hysterical overreaction much, given the number of uniformed & plain clothes security people who were right behind the peaceful protestor who was shot.

          2. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            He's just had all his other buttons taken away from him so he's only got the jolly candy-like button left that, when pressed, makes it all about him. Many Trump isn't so sure.

            1. Dan 55 Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: An elephant in the room

              *Mary Trump

          3. Lars Silver badge
            Coat

            Re: An elephant in the room

            "He's not going to do it".

            He is nuts but perhaps not that nuts.

            However I would claim the Army has already secured the system from Trump, they have been worried about Trump's mental health for a long time.

            1. W@ldo

              Re: An elephant in the room

              What an expert--the Army is one of the US armed forces that has nuclear weapons. There is coordination between all branches of the military for any first or defensive nuclear strike.

              You Brits really need to focus on your own country and quit applying what you see in movies or comics to real life.

              1. smudge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                There is coordination between all branches of the military for any first or defensive nuclear strike.

                Nope.

                See my reply to your other comment just above.

              2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                We're focusing on your country because it's the only one that makes us look any good.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Ahh. You're one of those insecure Americans who has a hissy fit when someone who's not American dares criticise.

                There are many like you, but fortunately, up to now, they haven't posted on this site.

                Incidentally, anyone can criticise something bad in the UK. You'll find we'll probably agree, and thank you for your interest. Or, we may disagree, but one thing for certain - as long as you're not just being a tit, we won't whine that you should just shut up and worry about your own country. That's because, like most of the rest of the Western world, we're grown ups.

        2. anthonyhegedus

          Re: An elephant in the room

          Wouldn’t it be just typical of poor security planning if there was a big red button linked to an ignition sequence on a nuclear warhead. It would be forced to launch on the basis of a launch instruction. Military chiefs would have to explain to the bomb that it’s been given the command based on false data. The poor confused nuke would have to have a think about it, and after coming to the conclusion that all information reaching it was false, would do what all bombs do, and detonate itself, just after exclaiming “let there be light!”

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            I understood that reference.

          2. Screwed

            Re: An elephant in the room

            That's phenomenology for you.

            I think I've figured out a way!

      2. Jim Mitchell

        Re: An elephant in the room

        Yes, he still has access. The military said they will ignore any unlawful orders from the President, and then inform him of lawful options, same stance as previous.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An elephant in the room

      More Pelosi riding high looking for her pound fo flesh.

      Watch things fall into a black hole.

      1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        Re: An elephant in the room

        More Pelosi riding high looking for her pound fo flesh

        Whatever (negative) opinion you have on Nancy, you can thank Donald for it: The more Donald acts the way he is now, the more he makes Nancy look like a better option.

        1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          More Pelosi riding high looking for her pound fo flesh.

          Donald has, single-handedly, made a lot of bad people (very, very bad people) look "acceptable". Nixon and Watergate? Carter and the Iran Hostage event? Clinton and Lewinski "karaoki"? These events in America's past are now taught in only specialized history classes. At best, these are one or two pages in the American history books.

          But what of Donald J Trump? There will be several volumes that will fill up shelves of the Library of Congress. No American state figure has made a joke of the American style of "democracy". This is not a "mockery" any more. Mockery has made it to the other side of the ocean, burnt the boat it took to get there, has opened up a thriving McDonald franchise and has claimed political asylum. No, this has gone beyond past "mockery".

          But what of Donald J Trump? Well, there will be enough comedy material to fuel generations upon generations of comedians, talk show hosts and even circus clowns. No one could make this $hit up. He just brings it upon himself. A "gift" that just keeps on "giving". Endless. Incessant. Continuous.

          Donald J Trump is accustomed to getting what he wants, his way. And when he doesn't like what he gets, let us just say his social media posting will be like eating of handful of H*ribo Sugarfree Gummy Bears. (Hint: Read the reviews.)

          Donald J Trump, who claims to be a "very intelligent" person, ran his own casino into bankruptcy. A friggin' CASINO! Bankrupt! Australians have a saying: Cannot organize a root even with a fistful of $50 bills.

          No, I do not need to make this $hit up.

          Just imagine for a moment: Image some influential American talking to a dictator like, say Kim Jong-un, convincing Kim about adapting Western-style democracy into North Korean way of life. Kim would be, literally, peeing in laughter or burst an artery (or two).

          In his four years in office, Donald has burnt a lot of bridges (instead of steak). He has salted the battlefields (instead of bacon). Old, lifelong friendships have been soured or strained (if not severed already). As of today, 09 January 2021, there are >369 000 Amercians who have died from COVID-19. American hospitals are turning hospital underground carpark into beds to treat American COVID-19 patients. Do not believe me? Go have a look!

          Biden and Harris term of office will be like walking up Baldwin Street in the middle of a hot NZ summer day: The road will be long, tough, steep and unforgiving slog. Even the famed UK SAS selection march in Brecon Beacons will look like a picnic.

          Donald has burnt down the house. He has burnt down the farm. He has burnt down the neighborhood. Pray someone will stop him before he burns entire world with a nuclear strike.

          1. Joe Drunk
            Happy

            Re: An elephant in the room

            But what of Donald J Trump? There will be several volumes that will fill up shelves of the Library of Congress.

            Forget volumes in a library - I can't wait for the mini-series to come out on a streaming platform, I will gladly subscribe just to watch it!

            I wonder which actor they'll get to play Trump?

            P.S. I live here in the US and I'm not concerned with President Stump pushing any button. He has painted himself into a corner, all alone with no allies save his rabid hate mongering supporters. He is a lame duck whose clock is ticking (12 days left).

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              I wonder where the Trump Presidential Library will be located and what will be in it? Considering is disdain for books and "book learnin'".

              1. Shooter

                Re: An elephant in the room

                It will consist almost entirely of his Twitter archive.

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Won't they need special permission to store toxic waste?

              2. Shadow Systems

                At John Brown, re: the Trump presidential library.

                It'll have a sign on the door warning about leopards. =-)p

            2. Stephen478

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Perhaps tell Trump he did indeed win and run his second term as a TV series, we could call it the Trumpman show. Everyone will be happy.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Unhappy

            No one could make this $hit up.

            Several years ago someone made up this story, it's the fairy tale called "The emperor without clothes".

          3. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: An elephant in the room

            "Donald J Trump, who claims to be a "very intelligent" person".

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt9QtHHx-9M

            I think if we have to remember him, lets do it laughing, it's a very very strong weapon against people like him.

          4. W@ldo

            Re: An elephant in the room

            You have absolutely no idea what is going on over here--focus your energy on your own lovely country that no doubt has some things to fix.

            The hospitals are very busy, but not using car parks for patients. You folks are being fed a line of propaganda BS from the very socialist BBC.

            1. John H Woods Silver badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              W@aldo: "You have no idea what's going on over here"

              * no time passes *

              W@aldo: *comments on what's going on in the UK*

              1. W@ldo

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Nope, I have not commented on your politics. They are not amusing to me in the least. I used to listen and watch BBC to get an alternate take on US activities. That was until BBC aligned with US media and social media to spew the same made up "facts".

                1. John H Woods Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  "I used to listen and watch BBC to get an alternate take on US activities"

                  But, not being here, you seem to have missed the fact that most brits get their news from other sources, quite often a variety of them.

                  The BBC is not 'state controlled' although it has been reluctant to criticise various governments, of both sides. So you can watch BBC all you like but you do not know "what is going on here"

                  Quite apart from that it is absolutely risible to suggest that people should only form opinions about the country they live in. People of all countries in the world are, at the very least, going to have a strong interest about the world's most powerful countries: what happens in the USA can affect us all.

            2. stungebag

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Oh, you are a hoot.

              I read Americian newspapers every day: I wonder how many Americans read the British press?

              Yes, the HNS is under severe and unprecedented stress at the moment due to a particularly nasty virus. Your health care system is struggling in many parts of the country, too. Can you imagine how bad it would be if you also treated the poor?

              The odd thing is that many who support Trump don't believe in this virus for the simple reason that they're thick as shit.

              1. W@ldo

                Re: An elephant in the room

                No, all have acknowledged the COVID-19 virus and its origin from Wuhan China. It is a potentially deadly bug, especially to those with underlying conditions. Again, more BBC propaganda that folks do not believe the virus exists or is impactful.

                What folks don't agree on is the science behind masks, lockdowns and other draconian measures supported by politicians. Note how much Bezos net worth has increased during this tragic outbreak--I personally think profiting off the pain of others is worth talking about. Bezos hardly lifts a finger supporting charities that could help others.

                The generation(s) before you withstood viruses, wars and natural disasters with courage. Why cower in the face of something that could be handled without destroying the economic lives of those working for a living???

                1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room @W@Ido

                  I think you have to remember that this is the first global pandemic since the 1919 Flu pandemic. Back then, there was no global media, the best news was from newspapers that took days or weeks to get around the globe (as did the pandemic!)

                  There was no national health systems *anywhere*. There were no effective vaccinations. People died by the million, but there were no systems to accurately record what happened. Local health care was not even there to be overwhelmed.

                  People just died where they lived. But then again, people died more frequently back then. Poverty was endemic in almost every country around the world even without the pandemic. We'd just been through a World War, and people died. The population was numb to further deaths. And often the people who were worst effected were the unimportant, little people, who individually disappeared without even being counted.

                  We have had a century of improved health systems, improved social conditions, improved life expectancy, better accounting. People expect to live, not to die (at least not until they get old). And we are not so faceless, we have birth and death records which record why people die that can be queried in mere days. We notice now like never before.

                  And anybody, even the poorest in what you might consider as third world countries, have opportunities through technology and social media to have their stories recorded.

                  This is the first pandemic where for a large part of the world, we can measure in near real time the effect, and we have shock headlines written in minutes not days. In many countries we have come to expect that even if we get ill, the support is there for us to survive. We are in shock that it now can't.

                  We've never been able to watch something like this unfold before. It is different, and it will never be the same unless we have a technology crash. You just can't compare previous situations. They are not the same.

                  Humanity as a whole will survive. But that doesn't tell you how many or who will die.

                  1. Lars Silver badge
                    Happy

                    Re: An elephant in the room @W@Ido

                    Yes it's indeed worth having a look at the 1918 Spanish Flu historical documentary. Note it had no roots in Spain but a free press.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDY5COg2P2c

                  2. katrinab Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room @W@Ido

                    Actually, if you compare how quickly this pandemic spread around the world with previous pandemics, there isn't that much difference. People have always done international travel. Sure we now use planes that take hours rather than boats that take days, but in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't speed things up that much.

                    News definitely travels a lot faster though. When there was an attempted coup in the US a couple of days ago, the pictures of it reached my YouTube Live window a few seconds after it happened, whereas previously it would have taken maybe a week for it to reach the newspaper in my local grocery shop.

                  3. Cuddles Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room @W@Ido

                    "I think you have to remember that this is the first global pandemic since the 1919 Flu pandemic."

                    It's the ninth. Plague, two cholera, three flu, typhus, psittacosis and AIDS. Note that the AIDS pandemic is still very much ongoing, and the most recent flu pandemic was only just over a decade ago. Also note that the first SARS, MERS, and Zika all had global spread and only really avoided being declared pandemics based on semantics, all of them within the last two decades.

                    People like to remember the Spanish flu and talk about how much things have changed since then. But pandemics aren't occasional rare events, we actually average about one per decade. This isn't the first pandemic with global news. It's not even the first with Twitter. There's nothing different this time; we've watched exactly the same things unfold in the same ways over and over again. Everyone just immediately forgets all about it, and then accuses health officials of fearmongering every time they warn about the latest worrying disease with pandemic potential.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room @W@Ido

                      Rather begs the question why so much fuss now?

                      Oh yeah... Follow the money.

                2. heyrick Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  "Note how much Bezos net worth has increased during this tragic outbreak"

                  Could that possibly be because his empire mails out stuff, which is kind of useful when places are on lockdown and most of the shops are shut?

                  There are two sectors that really ought to be doing spectacularly right now - internet mail order, and video conferencing.

                  Brick and mortar shops? Not so much. I think here (France) the restaurants that don't support takeaway have been closed more than open in the past year. We never had an "eat out to help out" policy because even the dimmest politician understood that stuffing a lot of people into enclosed spaces for lengthy durations (the average restaurant meal is what, an hour?) during an ongoing pandemic was a really dumb idea. Still, I do wonder how many will reopen when the dust settles and we can put the chaos behind us.

                  "What folks don't agree on is the science behind masks"

                  Personal sample of one here, but I've been out and about as sparingly as possible and worn a mask in all public places, plus the hand washing. Not only have I not contracted the virus (thankfully), I have also not had the winter flu or any cold. Usually the flu gets me for about a week and I have two or three rounds of cold. So, I'm not complaining about wearing a mask, nor others doing likewise.

                  As for the utility of masks, try an official source and not whatever shit turns up on social media: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

                  "lockdowns and other draconian measures supported by politicians"

                  I doubt that politicians would trash their own country's economies, risk huge unemployment, and likely make their party unelectable for decades without a damn good reason behind it. Here in France we came out of second lockdown into a country wide curfew (was 8pm-6am, is now 6pm-6am in parts over in the east) because it was obvious that the full liberation after the first lockdown meant that the infection rates, that were under control, shot right back up again. So they're trying something different to try to keep things contained without diving straight into another lockdown. In this way we can all attempt to have some semblance of a life while this problem continues.

                  Of course, it isn't helped by fuckwits having a booze filled rave, or the devout deciding to defy proximity restrictions and pack themselves into churches...

                  1. katrinab Silver badge
                    Happy

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    "Still, I do wonder how many will reopen when the dust settles and we can put the chaos behind us."

                    When people are allowed out to restaurants again, and feel that it is safe to do so, they will do in initially much greater numbers than before. This is not like a typical debt crisis/asset bubble recession where it takes years to recover. It is more like a wartime recession where it recovers very quickly once the cause of the problem is removed.

                    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Unlike a wartime recession, we don't have near full employment. And people are still and will continue to lose their jobs. I think you are mainly correct, but it will take longer than we think or expect, to recover.

                3. Lars Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  "Why cower in the face of something that could be handled without destroying the economic lives of those working for a living?".

                  Like has been so incredibly well and successfully documented by the Americans, the British and the Swedes.

                  Do nothing and it will magically disappear wasn't the right decision.

                  Why is this so hard to understand, is it all about the opinion of the Chosen One, the one with the great brains who just wanted people not to be worried and disturb the stock market.

                4. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  "The generation(s) before you withstood viruses, wars and natural disasters with courage."

                  And masks. Flu of 1918-1919, people wore masks. Masks work, and the only people disputing the science of it are idiots. Yes, I'm calling you an idiot.

                  1. DJO Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    They even wore masks during the 14th century black death plague, it didn't help but they were trying their best.

                5. iron Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  > What folks don't agree on is the science behind masks, lockdowns and other draconian measures supported by politicians.

                  Only idiots and morons like yourself and your pal Mr Two Racoon Hat. The rest of us understand that masks reduce everyone else's exposure to germs coning from your nose & mouth which will help prevent them getting sick if you are sick. Since many people who have COVID are asymptomatic, not wearing a mask is akin to firing your gun in random directions while in a crowd of people. You may never know it but you may have killed people.

                6. veti Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  The evidence from Australia and New Zealand is now quite incontrovertible. Once the virus is gone, the economy will rebound without even needing further expensive stimulus.

                  But until then, it won't. As long as people are reluctant to spend lots of time mixing with others, your economy will remain in the crapper.

                  You want the recession over? Distribute the vaccine. Quickly.

                  1. Lars Silver badge
                    Happy

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    "The evidence from Australia and New Zealand is now quite incontrovertible. Once the virus is gone, the economy will rebound without even needing further expensive stimulus."

                    Largely true I would agree but problems abroad will affect tuorism and the export/import market so that many companies will still suffer.

                  2. Triggerfish

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    I've been in Vietnam since this started. Tourism is hit, but the rest of the economy is open. That means money isn't going to the Jeff Bezos types because everywhere else is closed, but moving everywhere at all levels, street vendors, small shops, and even tourist spots (internal tourism) and apart from about 2-4 weeks for most (clubs were closed earlier, education centres were shut down for months, some tourist places have stayed closed), that's the only close down they have had. the economy is going to bounce back way quicker because of this.

                    Also mask and stuff yeah they definitely work, I cant see why wearing a mask is uncourageous TBH.

                7. A random security guy Bronze badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  “ What folks don't agree on is the science behind masks, lockdowns and other draconian measures supported by politicians. ”

                  I don’t think you are asking folks like doctors, nurses, pandemic experts, etc.

                  you are asking your echo chamber.

                  350+k people have died and the death rate is increasing and you are spreading this misinformation.

                8. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  You didn't see Clay Clark at a recent Trump rally, telling the crowd the virus is a hoax, and that they should all hug the stranger next to them?

                  Now I know why you criticise us Brits from commenting on American politics - it's because we know more about it than you do.

                  Before you shout "fake news, deep state Marxist propaganda", there are plenty of videos of the event:

                  https://www.google.com/search?q=clay+clark+superspreader

            3. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              "

              The hospitals are very busy, but not using car parks for patients. You folks are being fed a line of propaganda BS from the very socialist BBC."

              Don't know what news this guy's watching, but effectively parking lots ARE being used for patients here in the USA; not nationwide by any means but yes it's absolutely happening. There aren't like patient beds sitting out there, but the ambulances are having patients stuck in them for hours because there is not room to remove them and put them into the hospitals (which if anything is worse, since then the ambulance can't go help someone else if they need it.)

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Don't know what news this guy's watching, but effectively parking lots ARE being used for patients here in the USA; not nationwide by any means but yes it's absolutely happening.

                That can be fairly normal. So any decent hospital system has 'red' plans for mass casualty events. And following on from 9/11, funding for more field hospital tents for either triage, or treatment. It's been one of those areas where technology transfer from military to civilian has improved emergency medical options. So a field hospital doesn't have to be a tent with cots in it any more, but very capable field operating rooms that can be quickly deployed in emergencies.

            4. paulll

              Re: An elephant in the room

              "Focus your energy on your own lovely country."

              The United States has materially interfered with every country on this planet for over a century, now we're rightly mocking you and we're getting, "Waa waa you don't understand, mind your own business."

              Go. Fuck. Yourself.

            5. Martin Silver badge
              WTF?

              Re: An elephant in the room

              "....the very socialist BBC..."

              Words fail me.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Words fail me.

                But sadly not the Bbc..

                https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55611630

                House Democrats plan to introduce a charge of "incitement of insurrection" against the president over his role in the violent storming of the Capitol.

                But that's pretty normal for the US, eg-

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism

                Insurrectionalist ideas also spread to the New Left movement in the United States, often being present in various revolutionary terrorist organizations, such as the Weathermen, Black Liberation Army, and M19CO. Weathermen leader Bernardine Dohrn argued for violence, saying: "We've known that our job is to lead white kids into armed revolution. We never intended to spend the next five to twenty-five years of our lives in jail. Ever since SDS became revolutionary, we've been trying to show how it is possible to overcome frustration and impotence that comes from trying to reform this system. Kids know the lines are drawn: revolution is touching all of our lives. Tens of thousands have learned that protest and marches don't do it. Revolutionary violence is the only way."

                Plus ca change, plus ca meme.. So much the same as last year with 'Antifa' attracting the kids to march under old left banners.. On which point

                Meanwhile, former Republican California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger labelled Mr Trump as the "worst president ever" in a social media video on Sunday.

                The actor likened Wednesday's violence to that of the Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass, during which Jewish property was destroyed in Nazi Germany in 1938.

                And the 2nd most famous Austrian should probably know. It's commies vs nazis all over again! But those that ignore history..

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

                The Times of London observed on 11 November 1938: "No foreign propagandist bent upon blackening Germany before the world could outdo the tale of burnings and beatings, of blackguardly assaults on defenceless and innocent people, which disgraced that country yesterday."

                Antifa said "Hold my beer!". Although last year's rioting & looting wasn't focused on one specific group, the results look like they're gong to be much the same. Round up political dissidents, introduce new definitions & crimes to top Biden's proto-Patriot Act.. And of course crack down on political speech.

                What could possibly go wrong?

                1. veti Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  It takes a very special reality filter to blame 'Antifa' for last Wednesday's debacle.

                  They're not the only idiots on the streets, you know.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    It takes a very special reality filter to blame 'Antifa' for last Wednesday's debacle.

                    So.. how would you re-define 'domestic terrorism' or incitement to include 'far right' extremists, but exclude 'far-left' groupings like Antifa, which spent much of last year looting & pillaging in an attempt to remove Trump. Justice is, after all supposed to be blind, and laws applied equally.

                    As for the Bbc, it has a Charter, which is the legal basis for it's existence, and part of that is it's supposed to be 'balanced' and mostly politically neutral. Yet it's been incredibly biased & hysterical about it's Trump coverage. Presumably it thinks media crackdowns (social or otherwise) might boost it's Bbc America audience.. Or just it's commercial income by competing with say, the NYT as the hard-left's news channel of record.

                    But it's bad, very, very bad. See for example this story about another 'crisis'-

                    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55560714

                    Covid: The truth behind videos of 'empty' hospitals

                    Which contains much waffle, but precious little truth. And it'd be a simple truth to explain, ie simple bed occupancy rates across UK hospitals. Beds available vs beds occupied. It's a common metric hospitals use for capacity reporting & planning, and presumably something the Bbc's 'world class' journalists could find out.. if they chose to.

                    1. Martin Silver badge
                      WTF?

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      "...by competing with say, the NYT as the hard-left's news channel of record..."

                      Christ, if you think the New York Times is hard-left, what on earth would you consider the Guardian to be?

                    2. Martin Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      But it's bad, very, very bad. See for example this story about another 'crisis'-

                      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55560714

                      Covid: The truth behind videos of 'empty' hospitals

                      Which contains much waffle, but precious little truth. And it'd be a simple truth to explain, ie simple bed occupancy rates across UK hospitals. Beds available vs beds occupied. It's a common metric hospitals use for capacity reporting & planning, and presumably something the Bbc's 'world class' journalists could find out.. if they chose to.

                      The bed occupancy rates have nothing to do with this article. The article is not talking about a crisis - it is challenging the deliberately misleading videos uploaded on Twitter and others which make overrun hospitals look deserted, and getting the correct information about two or three of them from the hospitals themselves.

                      So what is so "bad, very very bad" about this?

                      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        ..and others which make overrun hospitals look deserted, and getting the correct information about two or three of them from the hospitals themselves.

                        How does a hospital get to be both overrun, and deserted? This is the NHS remember, where traditionally demands for more money are accompanied by stories about patients lined up in corridors..

                        So what is so "bad, very very bad" about this?

                        Like I said. Simplest way to debunk the story is to simply publish the occupancy rates. I think last week Hancock said something like 30,000 beds occupied by covid-ish patients vs 140,000 or so total UK bed capacity. Ok, it's not that simple given hospitals should also have a lot of non-covid patients, and there may still be shortages of stuff like ventilators, or even just oxygen.. Or staff, ie there are probably a lot of staff shortages due to shielding, or testing positve, but then the NHS also cancelled a lot of routine stuff so staff could be redeployed to cover covid wards.

                        1. Martin Silver badge
                          Thumb Down

                          Re: An elephant in the room

                          Me: - "and others which make overrun hospitals look deserted"

                          You: - "How does a hospital get to be both overrun and deserted?"

                          You are deliberately trying to be annoying. Quite clearly, I said "make overrun hospitals LOOK deserted". You even quoted me, and then misrepresented me.

                          For example, you can make a busy hospital look deserted by going in and taking photos or videos of the corridors of the outpatients department, which are of course deserted as no-one is going into outpatients as most of the appointments have been postponed.

                          That's what the article was about. Not about occupancy rates. They are irrelevant to the point at discussion, which is the deliberately misleading videos.

                          I'm not going to engage any further with you. You are not arguing in good faith, and I have better things to do with my time.

                    3. veti Silver badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      I wouldn't. I'm fine with "domestic terrorism" including representatives of both left and right.

                      But that's nothing to do with the point of my post, which was that your post seemed to be intent on blaming last week's events on "antifa". Which is only really possible if you define "antifa" as including "anyone who engages in political violence, including those whom the president describes as 'very fine people' and 'patriots'", and I suspect that isn't your intention.

                2. Martin Silver badge
                  WTF?

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  I'm sorry? What's your point?

                  Someone suggested that the BBC was "very socialist".

                  I said "Words fail me".

                  And you said "Sadly, not the BBC" - and then proceeded to reference a story, which, as far as I can see, simply reports the facts, with no bias whatsoever. Certainly not a socialist bias.

                  So again, I ask - what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  A brexitter is a Trumpist conspiracy theory nutcase. What a surprise....

                4. heyrick Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Ideas of insurrection isn't the point.

                  It's ideas of insurrection egged on by the outgoing President who refuses to accept the result of a properly held election.

                  Note the part in italics and especially the part in bold. Any idiot can have delusions of ousting a government they see as corrupt and illegitimate (and they will, of course, fail). That the guy currently in charge is the ringleader makes it an entirely different situation.

                  Entirely.

                  Different.

            6. Blank Reg Silver badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              when you go on about socialist BBC or socialist UK then you have instantly labeled yourself a moron who has fallen for the right wing propaganda and have no idea what socialism actually is.

            7. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Hmmm. You just called the BBC socialist.

              In another post, you called them state run media.

              Can you see the contradiction here?

              And more of the "stop talking about my country, forinners" speal.

              Fox, OAN, and Newsmax have rotted your brain. Go back to your comfort zone - this place is for people able to critically think for themselves.

              HAND.

          5. heyrick Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Mockery has made it to the other side of the ocean, burnt the boat it took to get there, has opened up a thriving McDonald franchise and has claimed political asylum.

            So well put. :-)

          6. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            "But what of Donald J Trump?"

            A century or two from now, Americans will still ask "Who was the second worst president?".

            1. veti Silver badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Warren Harding was a forerunner of Trump in many ways. He busied himself with golf, poker and... ladies who were mostly not his wife, while his friends plundered the treasury through a series of scandals that kept unravelling for years after his death.

              He did, however, have a glimmer of self-awareness. "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here," he reportedly said, before having the good taste to die in office.

        2. W@ldo

          Re: An elephant in the room

          Here is a tip--go visit Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco. Oh, you'll have to climb a wall to get in--why would someone with such beliefs about no wall have a wall? And protective folks with guns? These politicians are self-serving maggots and have no desire to make life better for those of us working for a living.

          1. khjohansen

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Possibly to keep out “Patriots” like you - we’ve just seen what “Vanilla ISIS” is capable of!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Vanilla ISIS radicalization is the US' biggest threat right now.

            2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Possibly to keep out “Patriots” like you - we’ve just seen what “Vanilla ISIS” is capable of!

              Wonder if those were the people who allegedly graffitied Pelosi's garage door & left a pigs head on her drive? The anarchy symbols & demands for cash might tend to indicate a non right-wing tagger. Apperently her CCTV didn't get any pics, but the police & sanitation crews summoned at 3am may have picked up some overtime.

          2. W@ldo

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Ok all the thumbs down--for real, go visit Pelosi's palace in SFO. You won't get close. She is a grifter that made her money off the working people of the country.

            1. Gary Heard

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Do you have a fence marking you property? A wall is just a rather more substantial fence.

              I assume with your posturing that you don't have locks on your doors?

              Or are you afraid of black helicopters?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Again, what you Trumpists that treat politics as a team sport don't realise is that just because we criticise trump, we must worship Pelosi.

              We don't, Most of us consider Mrs 2 fridges to be a core part of the lobbyist corruption in American politics.

              Reducing politics to sports is for simpletons. People who can't think for themselves, and so attach themselves to a "team", with the mindset of "everything my team does is good. Everyone who disagrees must be on the other team, and must be bad"

              Stick to sports, sonny. People like you are the reason Donald "I hate poor people, they are losers" Trump has been so successful. The whole thing is about saving face and pointscoring to you, so much so you are blind to the truth

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Reducing politics to sports is for simpletons. People who can't think for themselves, and so attach themselves to a "team", with the mindset of "everything my team does is good. Everyone who disagrees must be on the other team, and must be bad"

                That's sadly a sign of the times. Orange man bad! Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Washington bad! CHAZ in Seattle good!

                Sure, pointing out similarities (and obvious differences) between wanton rioting, looting & property damage can be a bit whataboutery.. But also a tad relevant. Last year's left-wing violence is a matter of record, as are left-wing politician's reactions to that violence.. I mean peaceful protests. But you can also see from all the armchair Neros with their thumbs down that a lot of people don't seem to get that. Or if left-wing violence is encouraged, right-wing violence just becomes more inevitable. Same with stuff like blindly calling Trump, or any Trump supporters 'Nazis' or white supremacists.. even the black, hispanic or jewish voters who voted for Trump. Normalising that kind of hate-speech isn't exactly good for any civil society.

          3. random boffin
            Facepalm

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Never underestimate the power of denial. Of course this is based on a false story pushed out to the Cult 45 'believers' and eaten up like the rest of the lies. Some people just want to watch it all burn...

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Spiz

        Re: An elephant in the room

        Anonymous for a reason there champ?

        Don't have the courage of your convictions?

        Twat.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An elephant in the room

      He won't nuke Russia. Not while they have Golden Shower Kompromat.

      So, he'll probably pick on Iran instead.

      Wag the Dog.

      1. W@ldo

        Re: An elephant in the room

        It's kind of ironic that you comment on this BS when it originated in your own country. Doesn't that count as meddling in US politics/elections??? The UK was always a trusted ally, but when you start attacking politicians I think it is time to re-visit that position. The UK would lose lots of intelligence and resources.

        Remember, it was the USA that bailed you folks out in WWII. Most in the USA did not want to get involved in another foreign war. The UK used to be the leader in the intel community, but now is at best another tabloid putting false info on the streets.

        1. khjohansen

          Re: An elephant in the room

          The US entered WWII when Germany + Italy declared war - just after Pearl Harbour.

          1. W@ldo

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Yep, but prior to that USA had a lend/lease program for war supplies (ships, weapons, aircraft, etc) that was never paid back. Without those war materials you all would be speaking German--that is, those of you left after purging the undesirables. I think France is the only country to pay back its war debt to the USA.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

              1. WolfFan Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                The UK took several decades, but paid it all back.

                1. paduan

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  On 31 Dec 2006 in actual fact: the final repayment being some $83m. I remember Gordon Brown announcing it as it caught me by surprise.

            2. H in The Hague Silver badge

              Re: An elephant in the room

              "Yep, but prior to that USA had a lend/lease program for war supplies (ships, weapons, aircraft, etc) that was never paid back. "

              Fake news. Was repaid, albeit a bit late:

              https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-pays-off-final-instalment-of-us-loan-after-61-years-430118.html

              1. W@ldo

                Re: An elephant in the room

                So, when are the late fees and interest getting repaid? :-) Deadbeats!

                1. Getmo

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Here we witness the Trumptards blindly lashing out at anything and everything, in this case the entire UK, and for some reason trying to take offense at the outcome of WWII. Maybe he thought there might be a "gotcha" angle there. Or maybe they're finally smelling the end of Trump's term, and fight-or-flight reflexes are kicking in.

                  As an American reader, how about we change the tld back to .co.uk to keep more of these idiots away? We're sick of their verbal diarrhea on all sides of the pond.

            3. James O'Shea

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Seriously, you need to conduct a little research.

              1 The war loans were, mostly, paid back. The UK went to a great deal of trouble to pay them back.

              2 The US sent 50 overage, WWI-vintage, destroyers to the UK in return for bases on British territory. These bases included the locations of what are now the international airports in Trinidad (Piarco; there's a _reason_ why the main highway from Port of Spain to Piarco is the _Churchill-Roosevelt_ Highway); Barbados (Grantly Adams); St Lucia (Hewanorra); and probably others, I've only gone to those three, plus Vernam Field in Jamaica, now a motor vehicle raceway. The most famous of the ex-American destroyers was HMS Campleton, expended blowing up the Normandie Docks during Operation Chariot, the Greatest Raid of All. (5 VCs were awarded...)

              3 Das Reich wasn't coming across the Channel. Panzers can't swim, and they didn't have anything even barely resembling the sealift required for an invasion.

              4 You _do_ know that two of the five beaches at Normandy in 1944 were taken by British forces and a third by Canadians, don't you? Unlike the Nazis, the British Commonwealth and Empire _did_ have the sealift to mount an invasion.

              5 if the US isn't in the war, that means that the Japanese backed off... which means that the Australians, the Indians, the New Zealanders, and all the rest of the Empire are available to go after Naziland. Instead of two American beaches, there would probably have been an Australian and an Indian beach, with the Kiwis tagging along with the Aussies.

              1. W@ldo

                Re: An elephant in the room

                I notice you don't mention the USA human capital lost defending your soil. To us that is priceless, I guess meaningless to you folks. SMH

                Winston Churchill implored the US President to focus on Europe before going after Japan. If you look at how the war progressed, Australia could have been lost as well. Of course, nobody every talks about the Brittish Empire of colonizing lands of indigenous people and promulgating slave trade. You all like to cancel things, using that logic the UK would be in line somewhere for canceling.

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  "Of course, nobody every talks about the Brittish Empire of colonizing lands of indigenous people and promulgating slave trade."

                  It's well covered in history lessons. I even remember some of the dates. IIRC, the UK banned the slave trade about 60 years before the US civil war. I forget the primary reasons for the US civil war. Is that covered in your school histor lessons? Also IIRC, US, or parts of it, was one of the last western democracies to finally free their slaves.

                  Flying stone don't go well in glass houses.

                2. James O'Shea

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Son...

                  1 I last set foot in the UK in 1977. I have been an American citizen for literal decades now.

                  2 damn few Americans 'defended' Britain in WWII. There were a few volunteers, mostly in the RAF, and some serving naval personnel, notably 'observers' in maritime patrol aircraft (the first Navy Cross of the war was awarded to a USN officer serving as an 'observer' in an RAF long-range patrol aircraft which had a bit of an argument with a U-boat; the pilot and co-pilot were among the casualties, the 'observer' finished the attack, sank the u-boat, and brought the aircraft home, desapite being wounded himself) and the crews of USN ships on Armed Neutrality Patrol (USS Rueben James was sunk by a u-boat while on ANP off Iceland in September 1941; she was neither the first nor the last USN ship to engage u-boats while on ANP). The majority of the Americans in Britain were there to _attack_ Naziland; the 8th and 9th Army Air Forces, and the Army troops who went across the Channel. That noted bigot, Ernest King, pulled American naval forces (including the largest and most powerful ASW ships in the world, the 'Secretary' class cutters of the USCG) from the North Atlantic because he didn't want American ships to be under British command. He was fine with _Australian_ ships being under _American_ command, which lead directly to HMAS Canberra being sunk due to massive American incompetence; there would be a reason which there have been American ships named 'Canberra'. (Another Australian cruiser was part of the gun line at Suriago Strait; she was NOT the ship which caused the majority of American casualties in that action by raining fire down on an American destroyer, that would have been an American cruiser.)

                  3 Churchill and Roosevelt concentrated on the Nazis first because:

                  3a the Nazis were the most dangerous

                  3b Churchill & Roosevelt were (correctly) afraid of the consequences of leaving mainland Europe to be a private fight between the Nazis and the Soviets. Not least Churchill feared the consequences for morale among the various French, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Czech.and Polish units operating under British command; the Czech and Polish aircrews in the RAF were among the most effective, two Polish ASW ships were in the top 5 most effective, behind ships from Frederic John Walker's escort group, on the Atlantic; the Secretary cutters were the biggest ASW ships but not the best. Churchill _really_ didn't want to be seen as abandoning those men's countries.

                  3c Italy waa also in Europe, concentrating on Europe got a two-fer. (Actually, more, as Hungary, Romania, Finland, and Bulgaria were also Nazi allies; Japan had to be content with Thailand.)

                  4 no, Australia could not have been lost. Japan lacked the sealift to mount an invasion of Australia, just as they would have had serious problems getting to Hawaii. Japan could have _hurt_ Australia, badly, but actually taking it would have been a fantasy-land scenario right up there with the Nazis getting across the Channel.

                  5 Britain outlawed the slave trade in the first decade of the 19th century. One of the causes of the War of 1812 was British interference with American shipping attempting to run slaves across the Atlantic. Britain went so far as to declare that slavers were, for the purposes of law at sea, pirates, and subject to the same penalties as pirates when caught by the RN. That is, to be hung by the neck untill deasd, dead, dead. The US objected. Britain said 'come and stop us'.

                  5a slavery was abolished in British territories starting in 1833; there was to have been a period of 'apprenticeship' for 5 years, but mostly the now ex-slaves departed en masse. This had consequences; in the Caribbean, British planters imported, successively, workers from Madeira and the Azores (didn't work, is a major reason why there are a lot of people with Portuguese and Spanish names in Jamaica and the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean); Syria/Lebanon (didn't work; that's how Eddie Seaga's ancestors got to Jamaica, with major consequences in 20th century politics in the region); from China (didn't work, except to get lots of Overseas Chinese to places they would never have got on their own); and from India (didn't work, just got lots of Indians to Jamaica and especially Trinidad and Guyana; there's a reason why the West Indies cricket team had men with names like 'Ramadeen' and 'Kanhai' ) and finally to try to make things difficult for the ex-slaves and their descendants (didn't work; see further Paul Bogle and the Morant Bay Rebellion, and Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley and the trades union movements. There would be a reason why politics in the region is dominated by parties which grew out of unions. The only thing more bolshie than a Jamaican cane cutter is a Guyanese cane cutter...) And, oh, in southern Africa the British abolition of slavery directly caused the Great Trek when the Boers went north to escape British tyranny and to keep their slaves. Meanwhile, the US fought a civil war to end slavery... and ton this day there are some who _still_ carry the battle ensign of the Army of Northern Virginia. Including idiots among those who stormed the Capitol building. (And they're doubly or even triply idiots; the actual ensign was _never_ the flag of the Confederacy, and was _square_, not rectangular. The idiots can't even get _that_ right.)

              2. W@ldo

                Re: An elephant in the room

                By the way...that raid on the dry docks and the many other raids done by UK soldiers deserve a salute. Those are some awesome stories of heroism. I wish this generation had something similar to share.

            4. W@ldo

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Awe....all the thumbs down. Get some history lessons and you'll see how bad things could have been without the USA coming to the aid of the UK. It would have been bad for us too as no doubt all you thumbs down types would have signed on with the Germans/Japanese after some propaganda.

              Winston Churchill was voted out of office after WWII due to the socialists wanting power--how the hell did that happen to such an incredible statesman. Oh, he did come back after the UK got fed up with the socialists. Maybe a repeat in the USA???

              1. paduan

                Re: An elephant in the room

                I'm not even remotely a socialist (never voted left of centre in my life) but it's strange how a lot of what was instituted by said socialists in the 5 years after WW2 stuck, not least the concept of free healthcare regardless of income or status. How's that working out in the good ol' US of A?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Because WC was a racist wanker?

                1. James O'Shea

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Racist... sorta.He thought that there three tiers of humanity: Englishmen, other Britons and members of the Empire and Commonwealth (in that order...) and everybody else. A black or Indian who was from the Empire was obviously superior to one of those lesser folks without the law from outside of the Empire and Commonwealth. And that especially included Frenchmen and Americans, save for those sufficiently enlightened as to join the Empire. Admittedly, black/Indian Empire subjects were at the bottom of the heap of Empire subjects, but they were still better than anyone from elsewhere.

        2. John H Woods Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          "it was the USA that bailed you folks out in WWII"

          Yep, but it wasn't Trump's USA, was it?

          Literally the whole problem your less-than-half-of-the-USA has is that it thinks it IS the USA.

          1. W@ldo

            Re: An elephant in the room

            I don't think Trump was born yet or had any influence. It was a democratic president at the helm during those times and the war was a leftover of unfinished business from WWI. Oh, remember, you all wanted us over there to spill our blood to save your arses.

        3. Screwed

          Re: An elephant in the room

          Just a little bit of help from the Soviet Union. Probably over 10 million dead. And, for example, numbers of tanks that are astonishing.

          1. WolfFan Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Nearly 30 million dead, about one third of them military.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: An elephant in the room

              In the US a century ago, German was a commonly used language. A lot of Americans have German roots. You can tell by their names. In fact trump is one of them. It feel very much out of favour for some reason.

              1. Lars Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: An elephant in the room

                "A lot of Americans have German roots".

                Yes Drumpf is one but so is Dwight Eisenhower.

                "The Eisenhauer (German for "iron hewer/miner") family migrated from Karlsbrunn in Nassau-Saarbrücken, to America, first settling in York, Pennsylvania, in 1741, and in the 1880s moving to Kansas.[2] Accounts vary as to how and when the German name Eisenhauer was anglicized to Eisenhower".

                Which proves that nothing of value can be based on just such things.

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            "Just a little bit of help from the Soviet Union. Probably over 10 million dead. And, for example, numbers of tanks that are astonishing."

            FWIW, many British and American tanks were sent to Russia too. I forget the figures now, but a significantly large percentage of Russian tanks, vehicles and arms were British and American supplied. I seem to recall of figure of about one quarter of main battle tanks in the Red Army were imported The Brits alone exported enormous amounts of war material to Russia.

            Ah, here's a Wikipedia page.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_Soviet_Union#Lend_Lease_Tanks

            Also of note was that Russia gave the Germans, prior to WW2, access to large training areas where they could develop and train with their tanks in violation of the 1919 Versailles Peace Treat.

            The world is an ever changed tangle of alliances and enemies.

            1. Lars Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: An elephant in the room

              "FWIW, many British and American tanks were sent to Russia too. "

              Yes but there is more in that Wikipedia link, like.

              "By the eve of Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Soviet Union had some of the world's best tanks (including the T-34 and KV-1, which were basically a generation ahead, coming as a shock to the Wehrmacht). However, it still had many older tanks in its front-line armoured forces, with the T-26 forming the backbone of the Red Army's armoured forces during the first months of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. In overall tanks, however, the Soviet numerical advantage was considerable as the Red Army had a large quantitative superiority. It possessed 23,106 tanks,[19] of which about 12,782 were in the five Western Military Districts (three of which directly faced the German invasion front).

              The German Wehrmacht had about 5,200 tanks overall, of which 3,350 were committed to the invasion. This yields a balance of immediately available tanks of about 4:1 in the Red Army's favour. The best Soviet tank, the T-34, was the most modern in the world, and the KV series the best armoured. The most advanced Soviet tank models, however, the T-34 and KV-1, were not available in large numbers early in the war, and only accounted for 7.2% of the total Soviet tank force. But while these 1,861 modern tanks were technically superior to the 1,404 German medium Panzer III and IV tanks, the Soviets in 1941 still lacked the communications, training and experience to employ such weapons effectively.

              Under Lend-Lease, 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the Soviet Union. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the original 75 mm main gun, with 2,095 mounting the more-capable 76 mm tank gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans."

              There is a very unique recording of Hitler complaining about the Russians ability to produce a huge amount of tanks here, on a surprise visit to Finland.

              The Finns did the recording in secret until they were caught and had to stop.

              The Only Known Secret Audio Tape Of Hitler Speaking In Private

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-L1-nBzQ_0

              Adolf Hitler Talking with Mannerheim

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=395LsIt-BTA

              A guy in fantasy land like one other we have dealt with here.

        4. FIA Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          Remember, it was the USA that bailed you folks out in WWII.

          Oh, ffs, are people still trotting this tired old trope out? Why do people reference history whilst never learning the lessons it should be teaching us.

          Just to be clear, the parents and grandparents (and great grandparents, and probably great great grandparents in some cases) of the people here banded together to defeat a common enemy, many of them died doing it (most of whom were Russian). Most of these people are now dead and I'd be damn suprised if the Register had any in it's commentards. :) No-one here bailed anyone out of much in WW-II.

          It's understandable in the aftermath of such a tragic event that nationalistic pride will shine through. (Who pours their derision into the next generation of school children after all). Hell, I'm British and I was certanly taught how we won the war at school. However much more time has past and a more balanced perspective is probably now due, lets celebrate the efforts of the people involved, not where they were born.

          WWII was won by colaboration, and to reduce that victory to 'My country's better than your country' misses the point of all those people dying, on both sides.

          It's also the reason the damn thing kicked off in the first place.

          1. Tom 38 Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            America's involvement probably shortened WWII, but it was without question the Soviet Union's involvement that ended the war in Europe. Hitler didn't read his history books, and found out what Napoleon found out 130 years previously.

        5. veti Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          If you think it should be illegal for political campaigns to request opposition research from foreigners, then you go right ahead and campaign for that change to be made to the law. I assume the Republicans who originally commissioned the "dossier" would be fine with it.

          Just so long as it's the law for everyone, not just for one side, I'd have no quarrel with it.

          Though I think, for fairness' sake, you should also make sure the law covers the case if someone requests similar information using the office of the presidency and US federal funds already duly voted through Congress as leverage. I'd call that a much worse crime myself, but what do I know.

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: An elephant in the room

          > Remember, it was the USA that bailed you folks out in WWII. Most in the USA did not want to get involved in another foreign war.

          Oh geez, now you must be trolling. Read up on the history... Talk about being taken in by propaganda!

          As for "bailing out", that's a strange term to use considering we paid you.

          More accurately, you were the "hired help"

    5. jmch Silver badge

      Re: An elephant in the room

      Maybe a wise precaution from Pelosi, but unnecessary. Every single bit of Trump fuckwittery can be directly linked to him perceiving a personal or political gain out of it, which would not be the case with nuke-launching.

      What I predict is a spate of pardons for his nearest and dearest, as well as himself. If legal counsel makes it clear that self-pardon isn't legal, he'll step aside at the last minute and Pence will pardon him

  2. Russ Tarbox

    However you look at this

    It feels like Twitter et al have too much power.

    As the tweet in the article states, it suited them to have him tweeting for so long. Now they shut down his voice. Is that right?

    Much of the The sensationalist mainstream media and social media have become a scourge on our society. I hope they are reigned in, somehow.

    1. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: However you look at this

      I was amused that the tweet that led to them banning him for inciting violence said, "We have to have peace. So go home."

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: We have to have peace. So go home

        You forgot that it ended "we love you, you're very special"

        This is the bullshit we have to put up with. How can you claim that tweet wasn't inciting them?

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Now they shut down his voice. Is that right?

      No. He can still hold press conferences, rallies and stand on a soap box in the park and shout his delusions. What he cannot do is put stuff on my website or Twitter's.

      1. Danny 14 Silver badge

        Re: Now they shut down his voice. Is that right?

        How does the US stand on ffreedom of speech vs willful incitement of violence in public?

        1. Eric Olson

          Re: Now they shut down his voice. Is that right?

          Extremely hard to prove.

          Based on what I've heard 1A lawyers say, you have to be able to not only draw a direct line between a violent act to a speaker, but you have to show the speaker explicitly called for the violent act to happen in a very short time frame.

          The Brandenburg Test is:

          The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

          The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND

          The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

          1. Snake Silver badge

            Re: “likely to incite or produce such action.”

            Too late: Guiliani, Trump's lawyer, directly used "trial by COMBAT" in his build-up speech to the riot.

            https://youtu.be/kpSO2qRVysg

            Trump didn't call directly for violence but did call for a "show of strength". Trump did a very good job building up animosity towards anyone who he felt betrayed by: he laid into the Democrats, state election officials, mainstream media, "weak" Republicans...

            https://youtu.be/lBH7ql34Ex0

            I'd actually like to know when Giuliani will be disbarred for *his* actions in all this, they've only focused on Trump.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: “likely to incite or produce such action.”

              "I'd actually like to know when Giuliani will be disbarred for *his* actions in all this, they've only focused on Trump."

              A coalition of over a thousand lawyers have already demanded he be disbarred.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: “likely to incite or produce such action.”

              Trump also tweeted on 20 December. “Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: “likely to incite or produce such action.”

              He did not say "show of strength" he said "show strength".

              He did say the following before the rally:

              "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

              I do not know how you can claim that "show strength" implicitly was a call for violence when it was immediately followed by the explicit term "peaceful" in fact you appear.

              Additionally his speech after people broke into congress he stated:

              "I know your pain, I know you’re hurt, but you have to go home now, we have to have peace. We have to have law and order, we have to respect our great people in law and order.

              Surely only the most bias court could claim that these were incitements to violence?

              Giuliana's statements were stranger:

              "Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat. I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there."

              Now that is a way more violent statement in general, but it is in direct reference to people found criminally liable in 10 days time after criminal acts are uncovered. It additionally states that if they are proved wrong they would accept it. Again I doubt a court would be able to prove an intentional incitement to violence from those words

              1. teknopaul Silver badge

                Re: “likely to incite or produce such action.”

                those statements are unrelated, he has said a lot of things in his whole lifetime but what he should be prosecuted for are the things that he said that did incite violence.

                If you incite violence subsequently say, “actually maybe dont" you should not get away with it. That's Trump's tactic too. I hope it fails he has been saying inflammatory stuff and then backing down all the time. This time his incitement to riot caused a riot before he said anything to stop it.

      2. stringParameter

        Re: Now they shut down his voice. Is that right?

        There’s a big difference between your website and a website that’s used as an International social and political platform. And websites like Twitter are used as social and political platforms. As much as Trump is a weirdo I can’t condone Twitter’s decision here.

        If you’re going to play in that ballpark you need to act accordingly. Deleting elected national leaders just because you disagree with them is not the right way to go

    3. W@ldo

      Re: However you look at this

      Twitter is really an advertising company and folks can just stop using it. For whatever reason, people use that platform to satisfy their own vanity. When folks move away, then things will change. I hope that happens soon!

      1. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: However you look at this

        @Waldo - I actually agree with that. I don't think lawmakers should be directly engaging with the public on twitter any more than, say, a senior judge or police commander should be directly engaging with the public. The people who make the laws need to be as diligent as the people who execute them: maintaining the distance required to perform public service duties properly.

    4. chivo243 Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: However you look at this

      He broke the Ts&Cs is the stance. Raise your hand if El Reg has blocked much milder comments?

      I can easily raise my hand, I never could get an answer as to what crossed the line. It's in their Ts&Cs. If you sign up you play by their rules.

      Get over this point.

      1. Lars Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: However you look at this

        It's all about "free speech" - nobody is forced to publish anything you say or write.

        Sadly there are a lot of those who belive that there is somebody who is forced to publish what they say and write.

        To make this simple, you are free to claim the moon is made of cheese and that Covid-19 came from the moon too.

        But nobody is forced to reveal your great insight.

        1. Slabfondler
          Facepalm

          Re: However you look at this

          I seem to recall a recent post by a US politician who's suddenly been dropped by a big publisher, he was blathering on about censorship and 1st Amendment ov er losing this book deal, and ended with see you in court.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: However you look at this

            Whats worse, he knows that the first amendment applies to government and not private companies, but he's just pandering to the dumb maga base

            1. First Light Silver badge

              Re: However you look at this

              Not just pandering, that Yale Law School grad and former clerk to Chief Justice Roberts sent out a fundraising email on the morning of Jan. 6 using his objection to the certification as bait. He is in on the grift.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: However you look at this

        He not only broke the Terms and Services of Twitter, he quite literally did a Beer Hall Putsch and tried to overthrow the democracy by raising a mob of two thousand nutjobs and attacking elected officials.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

        Why is he still a free man? Because of partisan Republicans. Why the hell should Twitter be allowed to help a criminal overthrow of democracy? At what point is it legal for a company to help Republicans with their coup?

        My god the Republican excuses. "Now is not the time to ..." "healing requires..." "thoughts and prayers for the dead officer..."

        If they'd succeeded, captured legislators, took hostages, killed Pelosi, killed Schumer, they'd be on Fox News screaming "suck it up Libtards we're in power forever now". But no, they didn't kill Pelosi, they only killed a police officer by smashing his head in with a fire extinguisher till he was dead, so that's OK then?

        Officer Brian D. Sicknick, say his name Republicans, you killed a police officer with this latest coup attempt.

        We get it, they're the coup party. They'll do anything for power even back a coup.

        Saturday, Trump was threatening criminal charges if the the Georgia Secretary of State didn't find 11780 more votes for Trump. It's not even a few days before we get another coup attempt from him.

        Twitter have decided that they won't help Republicans have their coup. Why should anyone help any Republican have a coup?

        The question isn't 'why is Twitter not helping Republicans overthrow the democracy?', the question is 'why is Fox News helping Republicans overthrow democracy'?

    5. Julz Silver badge

      Re: However you look at this

      Twatter only has the power that you give it. Just don't use it and then see how powerful it is...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We're entering very dark times indeed

    A dark winter, if you will.

  4. croc

    Personally, I hope that Pence gets his way and everyone just waits things out. That way the Republicans will have to deal with Trump taking away a large swathe of the GOP's cash cows when he forms his own party, or dealing with Trump controlling the GOP from within. Either way, it will cost them for the near future, and possibly the not-so-near future.

    I hope that this is the wake-up call for the GOP to do a wee purge and force out of the ranks the rightest part of their right wings, and goes back to being a centrist based conservative party. The look of fascism is not a good look, Republicans Don't be the reason that 'history repeats itself'.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Splittist!

      Remember Nader in 2000? I'm so happy Trump says he'll fight on...

    2. veti Silver badge

      Clearly, Trump is going to retire to Florida, surround himself with some sort of "shadow cabinet", and spend the next four years reminding everyone how he won really but was ousted by a deep state coup. So he'll attack everything the government does and remind everyone how much better he'd do it.

      Much like Obama's two terms, really.

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        An excellent sub-prime career move choice *

        Clearly, Trump is going to retire to Florida, surround himself with some sort of "shadow cabinet", and spend the next four years reminding everyone how he won really but was ousted by a deep state coup. So he'll attack everything the government does and remind everyone how much better he'd do it. .... veti

        The Donald could use Keir StarmerKare Stormer as an acting role model to copy/mimic. He's surely proven himself to be very good at that sort of wannabe sturmführer thing, veti ‽ .

        * ... Is that both oxymoronic and moronic?

      2. veti Silver badge

        Curious about the downvotes on this prediction. I mean, it may be wrong, but at this ratio? - it looks more like it's actively upsetting people, and I don't see why.

        1. Lars Silver badge
          Happy

          @veti

          Adding Obama to you comment made it stupid.

          1. veti Silver badge

            All i said was that Trump would be back to pretty much the same role he played in the Obama years...

            I didn't think much of Obama as a president. He had some big failures - most notably, when he refused to pardon Ed Snowden - but on the whole, he was OK. But Trump never stopped carping and complaining that everything he did was uniquely awful, and that's pretty much the line he'll return to in two weeks.

            1. KarMann Silver badge
              Holmes

              My first time reading that quickly, I parsed it as meaning that Obama had behaved pretty much as you describe Trump behaving, rather than your actual meaning, which I now take to be Trump harassing Biden's presidency much the same way he harassed Obama's. If others misunderstood the same way I first did, but didn't give it that second read that I did, that might explain it.

        2. smudge

          it looks more like it's actively upsetting people, and I don't see why.

          Maybe they all live in Florida.

        3. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

          Words of a Strange Wisdom

          Curious about the downvotes on this prediction. I mean, it may be wrong, but at this ratio? - it looks more like it's actively upsetting people, and I don't see why. ..... veti

          Any down vote unaccompanied by a cogent reason is a positive indication of an ignorant machine being present and exercised by a neutered voice with nothing sensible and comprehensible to say and worth sharing, veti. ...... Sancho Panzas wanting to be as a Don Quixote but always fated to be destined to be tilting at windmills.

          And as often as that is shared here on El Reg, to try and help and educate them, it still persists to prove that either some cannot learn after reaching a certain limit or there be lots of newbies alighting here not yet au fait with the ways of getting oneself heard and understood in places in which they may find themselves as strangers in an Alien Seescape with Live Operational Virtual Environments/HyperRadioProACTive IT Engagement Fields.

      3. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        So he'll attack everything the government does and remind everyone how much better he'd do it.

        Donald used to criticize Obama for playing golf.

        Fact check: Trump has spent far more time at golf clubs than Obama had at same point

        Obama played golf once every 8.77 days as president. Trump, conversely, has been at a golf club once every 4.92 days so far.

        Trump said at an August 2016 campaign rally that he may never see his properties again if he was elected, explaining, "Because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go play golf."

        Trump's company has generated hundreds of thousands in revenue from charges to the Secret Service

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > Much like Obama's two terms, really

        I presume you mean "just like trump did during Obama's terms".

        It read like you were saying that Obama behaved the same way as Trump!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Delay and you face another coup

      That's exactly what Trump is trying for, *delay*! Kick him out now, do not delay.

      Trump and Guilliani were trying to delay the vote until beyond the end of the next day. See below they were calling around trying to get a delay till the evening of the next day. So obviously it's something they could do quickly. What could you do to seize power in two days?

      I note that among the hillbilly crowd were people properly disguised and properly equipped. One of them was photograph with the wide cable-tie restraints police use to tie the hands of people.

      So they were planning to take hostages.

      I also not that the capitol police let them in. The woman that was shot, there was literally two heavily armed capitol police man just standing there behind her. Doing nothing. If you haven't seen it, the police lined the corridor as the protestors walked between them. The Senators and Congressmen are inside that building they're supposed to be defending:

      https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/kteag7

      So, what can you do in a day and a half delay in the vote with hostages? You can go to the Supreme Court, with a fake 'compromise', to 'ease the hostage situation', of delaying the handover of power till all the claims are investigated thoroughly. Which of course can be a never ending story, since Trump can make an infinite number of false claims, and controls the investigators.

      This is what I think their strategy was. Kavanaugh and Amy Cohen Barret can portray themselves as the good guys... saving hostages. Trump and Rudy can pretend to be... saving hostages yet of course their people took the hostages in the first place!

      And yet again January 15th pops up. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, a Trump appointee, has resigned, but not effective until January 16th! Why not now Steven? Why not immeditely? Why delay it till after January 15th? 2200 police offices under you, and you put only 5 police on each entrance and even then, several of them were witnessed opening the gates and waving them in.

      Here's the Trump /Rudy attempt to delay the vote. i.e. note the complicit behavior. They are not seeking the National Guard, they are working hand in hand at the same time to delay the vote. The National Guard could not get permission to enter Washington Dc till much later.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html

      Trump and Guillliani called Senators while his mob was attacking asking them to delay the certification.

      "Lee's spokesman said the calls from Trump and his attorney were intended for Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a newly elected Republican from Alabama. The effort by the White House to get Tuberville to delay certification of the votes...."

      "Tuberville spoke with Trump for less than 10 minutes, with the President trying to convince him to make additional objections to the Electoral College vote in a futile effort to block Congress' certification of President-elect Joe Biden's win"

      Then Rudy tried:

      ""Sen. Tuberville? Or I should say Coach Tuberville. This is Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer," he said according to to the transcript.

      "I'm calling you because I want to discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you," Giuliani said,

      "I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow -- ideally until the end of tomorrow."

      So they needed a delay till the end of the following day. i.e. they had a plan that could be executed quickly.

      Every lawmaker and politicians needs to ensure their own personal security over the next days. Trump will get more desperate.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Delay and you face another coup

        Mitigations.

        Trump and Rudy failed to get the vote delayed till the end of the following day. The guys with the hostage restraints failed to take hostages. So whatever the one day coup plan was, it failed. Trump might have imagined AOC, hand tied behind her back at the mercy of a Trump man-in-black, and Pelosi bruised and restrained on the floor, but they failed to take any hostages. Those restraints went unused. AOC and Pelosi went unharmed. Trump's guys failed.

        Their plot failed.

        Just because that coup failed, it does not however mean they won't try again. You need to mitigate against the worst scenarios, rather than rely on glib optimism. Assume the worst, head it off.

        Ensure your personal security. Assume the worst scenario, and mitigate against it.

        Since the next attack vector of democracy is the Supreme Court, you need to ensure their security as-well.

        Trump will be calling them, trying to convince them to overthrow the election to calm the country! As if the person trying a mob base coup isn't him! That's the likely next coup attempt.

        You need to remove Trump now. You cannot risk an ever more desperate man as his days in power tick down. If he's sending mobs to attack Capitol Hill today, what will he do tomorrow when he's more desperate?

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: Delay and you face another coup

          Well fortunately the president can't "call the Supreme Court" and ask them to do something. You have to sue, have standing to sue, and have provable facts on your side. Even if he has standing, he has no provable facts on his side.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Delay and you face another coup

            You're new to this right?

            Standing, and fact are in the opinion of the court. The court is made of people. The people are majorly hand picked loyal partisans.

            As it turns out, the second part of this plot, the 16th/17th January part was far more old school coup.

            The original plan, pushed by Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz was to demand a 10 day delay to investigate 'fraud', i.e. taking them into 16th/17th and the second PAFA2021 plot.

            The Twitter and Parler bans suggest it was that PAFA2021 plot that triggered their bans.

            The PAFA2021 crowd were supposed to get a 15000 strong armed militia, take key targets, surround the Capitol Building, and only let their loyal Republican boys into Capitol hill to vote. Those loyal coup Republicans would then accept the report and vote the election fraudulent. The PAFA2021 guys would block the inauguration. Trump would declare himself President.

            Instead they didn't get the delay in certification, and Trump and Rudy called around for a 1 day delay instead, which would give them 1 working day, and the chance to file an emergency motion in the cosplay court to try to delay that way.

            It all seems to have failed, Trump simply doesn't have the quantity or quality of militia needed to pull that coup off. A bunch of hillbillies afraid of pepper spray are no substitute for an army.

            [Added] One more thing, I can show you that the PAFA2021 plot was started *before* January 6th, it isn't a *response* to January 6th, it forms part of a larger set.

      2. felixk

        Re: Delay and you face another coup

        How do you cope with the voices in your head? Or does your tinfoil hat really block them?

      3. veti Silver badge

        Re: Delay and you face another coup

        Delay, as we know, is the deadliest form of denial. And all delay happens one day at a time.

        They were asking Tuberville to buy them a day because they thought that was the best they could hope for from him. Not because they had a plot that would hatch in that time, but because - you win one day here, one day there, and it soon adds up.

        I'm sure the people storming the capitol had all sorts of deranged fantasies, and yes, surely Trump shared some of them. But always in Trump's mind there is something else: fear. Trump isn't going to be the one to overthrow American democracy, because that would take actual courage. That's why he's backpedalling furiously now, because he's terrified he may have gone too far and exposed himself to real legal danger.

        Since he doesn't have an AG to advise him any more, and he (wisely) has doubts about Giuliani's judgment...

        So yeah. If he could do it without risk, I think he'd be game for anything. But he can't. You need to worry about a potential despot with actual guts, as well as Trump's uncanny knack for riling up both parties' bases. I don't know who that could be - clearly it's possible one might come along, and if you could think of any safeguards to build that would stop them, this would be an excellent time to propose them. But equally clearly, Trump isn't the guy who'll do that.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Delay and you face another coup

          Indeed, delay is good, but more delay is better, what specifically was the strategy in this part:

          Giuliani: "I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow -- IDEALLY UNTIL THE END OF TOMORROW."

          Ideally until the end of tomorrow?? WTF?

          Not just Giuliani, Trump was calling around asking for the same thing. If you wanted to overthrow an election and stay in power, what could you do with that one day?

          They had a specific plan in mind, that required a specific delay.

          You're blocking the National Guard from being deployed. They're waiting at the border of Washington DC waiting to be permitted to enter the capital. Your police chief guy is helping your guys into the building, so potentially you can hold the building with protestors. You hold the lawmakers hostage by doing that.

          But then what? How do you turn, 'holding the law makers hostage' into 'overthrowing the election".

          I think the strategy they had in mind is the Supreme Court. Pitch your plan as "helping democracy" by "investigating these peoples deep concerns about the election" to delay the handover. The Supremes are ultra Republican partisans, they need an *excuse* not a *legal-rational* to hand power to a Republican president. This would give them that excuse.

          Trump can make infinite false accusations, with zero evidence, and his investigators can spend infinite time looking for non-existing evidence. Once you're down that path, the Supremes have effectively created a dictatorship.

          So what if that fails? The Supremes don't agree. What do his guys do next?

          https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html

          "police found a pickup truck full of bombs and guns near Capitol insurrection as wide-ranging investigation unfurls"

          i.e. pre-planning went on here.

          You need to remove this man without further delay.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Delay and you face another coup

            "So what if that fails? The Supremes don't agree. What do his guys do next?"

            Dear Supreme Court Judges.

            If you were to sign off on annulling an election, to appease a Trump mob, then the next time that election issue comes before your court, Trump can send a mob around to *your* court and *your* house to threaten *your* staff and *your* family, to ensure you rule the way he wants you to.

            You would be legitimizing Trump's use of mobs to seize power.

            So, regardless of your ridiculous extreme Republican partisan skewing, recognize that your own self interest lies in supporting democracy, not Trump's coup.

            1. Graham Cobb Silver badge

              Re: Delay and you face another coup

              I am neither a lawyer, nor a US constitutional expert (however, that makes me at least as qualified as the AC who originated this thread). But the reading I have done around the policy of the Supreme Court in electoral disputes is clear: the Court will always rule in favour of the process, not attempt to determine what was the correct result.

              We saw that back in the "hanging chad" days, and every other referral of electoral disputes to the court. The court wants to see the constitutional process followed, including defined checks and balances, and will not invent new tests, steps or processes to try to determine the "correct" or "fair" result.

              Trump has been packing the court with constitutional literalists. They are not going to be influenced by a violent crowd to change the presidential election process for anyone.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Delay and you face another coup

                @"Trump has been packing the court with constitutional literalists. "

                No, he packed the court with partisan cosplay judges.

                More details are coming out about the second armed plot. Not January 15th as I thought, but January *16th*.

                Now you can see why Republicans like Josh Hawley were trying to delay the certification for 10 days (from 6th to 16th January) to coordinate with this second armed plot.

    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "That way the Republicans will have to deal with Trump taking away a large swathe of the GOP's cash cows when he forms his own party"

      I could see a decently large, national 3rd Party being a useful force for good in the USA. Just not if it's a "breakaway Trump Party". Having a smaller 3rd Party to split the vote, forcing the big boys to be more conciliatory and have to get support from either the opposition or the new "minnows" might help remove some of the incredibly divisive partisanship we see today. From the outside, it looks pretty much like no cares what is going to be done by the governing party in the USA, so long as it's not the other party doing it. ie very much as if people are being asked to vote against something, never for something. "Don't vote $Party, they are evil" instead of "here's why we are better than $Party, vote for us". I see the UK going down a similar path, but no where near as far as the US has. Probably because we have other influential parties so it's not a given that one party will get an outright majority.

      1. Irony Deficient Silver badge

        a decently large, national 3rd Party

        I could see a decently large, national 3rd Party being a useful force for good in the USA. Just not if it’s a “breakaway Trump Party”.

        The most recent decently large, national third party in the USA was the Progressive Party in the 1912 election, when its presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt finished in second place in the Electoral College, behind Wilson (and ahead of the incumbent Taft). However, one could argue that in 1912, the Progressives were a breakaway Republican party.

    5. DS999 Silver badge

      The republican party is screwed

      They can't do a "purge". Trump completed a hostile takeover and turned it into the cult of Trump. If someone turns on him, he turns on them and they become persona non grata in the party.

      If they purge all the Trumpists, he'll just form a new party, called the Trump party of course, and the bulk of the republicans will move there. The republican party would become the new Whig party.

      What they really need is for him to end up in prison for one or more of the many crimes he has committed. Or to be impeached and have the "can never run for office again" vote. Though I'm not sure that latter would stop him from exercising control over the republican party.

      If he's in prison though, he won't be able to hold rallies, appear on TV etc. and eventually the fever will break and his followers will move on with their lives. I'm sure Don Jr, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and others would try to capitalize on that, but the cult is about one man and one man only. No one else will be able to take up the mantle, they will just look stupid trying.

  5. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

    Goin' down fightin'

    If only Donald had demonstrated this sort of "determination" with his personal business, he may have been a very good businessman.

    By the way, I like how a lot of (embarrassed) Americans like to spin this soap opera around with "this is how democracy works".

    This current state of American politics are making a lot of countries look very, very good.

    1. anonanonanonanonanon

      Re: Goin' down fightin'

      I kinda think that is how he ran his business, and why he failed so many. He very likely had unreasonable beliefs and demands, fired anyone who didn't agree with him, prob ended up with a bunch of yes men who covered what was really happening to the businesses until it was too late, and it all melts down.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    Let's take this one step further

    How about we deny ALL politicians access to social media?

    It's even-handed, and Joe Public's social feeds will contain a lot less bullshit*. Everyone wins.

    * Bullshit, as we all know, is what happens when a politician of any colour opens their mouth.

    1. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: Let's take this one step further

      Sure. Although I'd ban journalists first - from reading, let alone posting.

      (Even the El Reg journalists. While they're lovely people doing a wonderful job it would be hypocrisy to allow favourites to break the rules.)

    2. Danny 14 Silver badge

      Re: Let's take this one step further

      How about we just shut down twitter? Nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

  7. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    At least Trump has finally conceded

    In his last tweet ever he said he would not be going to the inauguration.

    1. Stoneshop Silver badge

      Re: At least Trump has finally conceded

      Which has very little to do with actually conceding, and he didn't even do that. Trump stated there would be an orderly handover "to the next administration" while leaving whose administration that would be up in the air.

      Being present at the inauguration of your successor is merely the polite thing to do, it has no bearing on the actual process. Biden's win has been certified by the combined meeting of the House and Senate, with Pence presiding, and that's what matters.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: At least Trump has finally conceded

        I wasn't talking about being present at Biden's inauguration. I meant Trump's own fantasy of an inauguration that he had to admit will never happen because the coup klutz clan failed dismally to hold the Capitol Building.

        1. R Soul
          Coat

          Re: At least Trump has finally conceded

          Were the morons who invaded Congress the coup clutz klan?

    2. LDS Silver badge

      Re: At least Trump has finally conceded

      Which may also mean 'feel free to create havoc, I won't be there so you don't risk to harm me too'....

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: won't be there

        Just like the failed coup he will be right there with them ... in spirit. This time his body will by stuck in quarantine at Prestwick Airport.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: won't be there

          Sturgeon has already said e won't be let in. If he gets to Prestwick it might just be to sit on board while his plane's refuelled to go back.

          1. Danny 14 Silver badge

            Re: won't be there

            It would be substantially funnier to tie him up in red tape. Leave him with Glasgows finest fried food.

            True story, there is a chippy in Annan i frequented that used to fry anything, they rarely changed the oil. Everthing had a distinct taste to it, not "bad" but not "good" either, but certainly "moorish". You couldnt stop eating the onion rings or battered pickled eggs. They had a management change about 10 years ago and cleaned up, it spoilt it.....

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: won't be there

              "They had a management change about 10 years ago and cleaned up, it spoilt it....."

              I wonder if that was related to a visit by the Food Hygiene Police? :-)

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: won't be there

            Assuming he did decide to fly over to Scotland instead of going tp the inauguration, would it it be a one-way flight on Air Force One? After all, he'd not be President after, what? early evening in Scotland on the 20th? Would Air Force One and all the attendant support teams and vehicles have to remain with Trump in Scotland until Biden is sworn in? Would Biden then have to wait for The Beast to return from Scotland before he can get his ride to the White House?

            1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

              Re: won't be there

              First of all, Airforce One is a call sign, not one single plane (and there are currently two that can fulfil that role). As for The Beast, there are also multiple, identical vehicles available. Whenever and wherever the POTUS goes, when he arrives the complete vehicle cavalcade is already there, even if he is making a multistop tour, whether in the USA or abroad.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: won't be there

                Whenever and wherever the POTUS goes, when he arrives the complete vehicle cavalcade is already there, even if he is making a multistop tour, whether in the USA or abroad.

                I once got to see part of that process.. And it's a pretty amazing logistical exercise with the USAF ferrying in fleets of Suburbans, backup Beasts etc. Much cargo for what may only be a short visit. Plus the other advance-party stuff, like seeing convoys of Surburbans blasting around Mayfair, testing routes from the old Embassy in conjunction with the UK police.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: won't be there

            Prestwick is just the refuelling stopover for Moscow. I hope they don't let him go with all their nuke codes and secrets.

            IT'S MID WINTER in Scotland, do you think anyone goes golfing in the miserable grey rain in Scotland during the winter? Of course not.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Prestwich to Moscow is 5 1/2 hours

              Cannot find an up to date Webcam for Trump Turnberry, nearest I can find is along the coast at Largs:

              https://www.windy.com/-Webcams/United-Kingdom/Scotland/Largs/webcams/1581774543?55.777,-6.509,8

              God it looks bleek.

              https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/donald-trump-could-be-planning-turnberry-trip-as-scots-airport-told-to-expect-a-high-flyer-the-day-before-joe-bidens-inauguration/

              "Prestwick airport has been told to expect the arrival of a US military Boeing 757 aircraft, that is occasionally used by Trump, on January 19 – the day before his Democratic rival takes charge at the White House."

              If he does a runner, flies to Scotland, refuels. Then he orders it to fly him onto Moscow, you would have around 5 hours to Section 25 him, and order the plane to turn around with him it. Later than that and he's got away. Sturgeon put a nix to Prestwich, but I bet he can land in other airports.

              Fat chance of Pence doing the Section 25 in time. Ducking responsibility is Republican 101.

              In that scenario, I wonder how long USA would be out of control of its nukes while Trump is in Russia, Pence refusing to Section 25 him, and Biden yet to be inaugurated.

    3. smudge

      Re: At least Trump has finally conceded

      In his last tweet ever he said he would not be going to the inauguration.

      Which is surely because he doesn't want to be in a known and very public place at the moment his Presidential immunity from prosecution runs out.

      He will be hiding.

  8. chuckufarley

    Never /dev/null...

    ...because that device file is actually vital to functionality of your system.

    While I can see the Sisyphean Justice an every minute cron job something like: "cat Trump >> /dev/null && cp /dev/null /dev/null" I could not in good conscience run such commands on a server, even if I didn't like the owners because they were evil bastards.

    Instead I would recommend something like setting /tmp to be cleared on reboot and then run

    # mv Trump /tmp/not_tmp_enough

    # sync

    # rm -rf /tmp/not_tmp_enough

    # sync

    # fstrim -a -v

    # btrfs scrub start /tmp

    # shutdown -r now

    I would only do this if there were no way to replace the server. Even then I would never trust it again.

  9. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Tweeted by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    It's amusing that his last ever tweet, from the Potus account, was "We will not be silenced" - only for that tweet to be deleted!

    The WSJ called for him to resign so it's unlikely he'll be given the same access to Fox News, which he'd already started dissing. Lets hope he starts vandalising Wikipedia pages to help run down the clock peacefully. Top golfers should challenge him to games to distract the spoiled child.

    1. Screwed

      Re: Tweeted by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

      From what I have read, not too "top". Rather, reasonably competent at golf but utterly adept at accepting fake scores.

  10. redpawn Silver badge

    Lying Sack of Trump

    It's just Trump being Trump. Give him another chance! You know you want to....

    Where are you Bombastic Bob?

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: Lying Sack of Trump

      Give him another chance! You know you want to.

      The only chance I want to give him is with a nice length of rope and a manual for various knots.

  11. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. redpawn Silver badge

      No comment

      You are a dipstick

      1. don't you hate it when you lose your account Silver badge

        Re: No comment

        I always like to check out somebody's previous comments before I post a reply. This is from one 4 months ago.

        It's not positive tests that made this thing so scary... it's deaths, and deaths are way, way down... but you won't hear that from the media

        Includes a lot of other nonsense, so yes I agree. A total dipstick

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: No comment

          Another who's more likely to learn by experience than any other way.

          1. TimMaher Silver badge
            Headmaster

            Nineteenth century Prussian

            I agree @Doc.

            Wasn’t it a 19th cent. Prussian who said “A truly wise man does not learn from his mistakes. He learns from the mistakes of others.”?

            At least that is how I remember it.

            My memory fades with time.

        2. Danny 14 Silver badge

          Re: No comment

          I like to convince myself that these people are just trying to wind you up for a laugh. The alternative (that this is their true belief) scares me.

    2. Danny 2 Silver badge

      You're correct Updraft102, antifa infiltrators caused the Capitol riot to make Trump look bad and it's high time they were identified.

      Rudy "Trial by combat" Guilliana is deep cover antifa. Ted Cruz and his wife and father - antifa assassins. Don Trump jnr with his extortations to violence - really deep cover antifa, our most important spy, we had to swap him at birth. Tony Fauci, with his deadly coronavirus plan to discredit Trump and inject microchips into patriots, antifa.

      And we would have got away with it if it wasn't for QAnon and you pesky kids.

    3. gotes

      Wow, you hear in the Fake News Media that there are people out there that actually believe this conspiracy BS, but you never think they actually exist.

      1. don't you hate it when you lose your account Silver badge

        Don't doubt it

        Their real, frighteningly real

      2. ecofeco Silver badge

        74 million of them.

    4. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Donald J Trump? Is that you hiding behind that username?

    5. TimMaher Silver badge
      Devil

      A slight edit.

      <sarcasm>Fake news... ...the word bat.</sarcasm>.

      There. FTFY.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dump The Trump

    or Trump the Dump?

    1. Sanguma

      Re: Dump The Trump

      Whew!!! Where's the stench coming from?

  13. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    Joke

    STOP THE PRESS! STOP THE PRESS!

    Donald Trump has announced on ONN that he's got TWO (2) new social media accounts -- TikTok and WeChat

    <eom>

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      What about Parler?

      or "Mein Space" as I have heard it called.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

        Re: What about Parler?

        AWS has notified Parler that they will suspend the service just before midnight on Sunday...

        https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws

        "On Parler, reaction to the impending ban was swift and outraged with some discussing violence against Amazon. "It would be a pity if someone with explosives training were to pay a visit to some AWS data centers," one person wrote.

  14. trist

    At least we know who was the bitch in the relationship....

    Social media companies - pimp you out until you are no longer pulling in the tricks.

  15. 45RPM Silver badge

    More terrifying, if that were possible, than the prospect of bankrupt Hitler still having access to the nuclear football (or whatever the briefcase of death is called), is the fact that so many people both in the US and abroad still support him.

    I have occasionally wondered how Naziism took hold in 30s Germany. I really didn’t want such a graphic demonstration.

    1. felixk

      Kindly restrict those comparisons to situations that are actually on the scale of National Socialism and genocide – say, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and their ilk.

      First, if Trump were Hitler, then why are you not in a concentration camp already?

      Second, and to me, this is more important than your whereabouts, you dilute and devalue the memory of what genocide truly means. You are not alone, not even close, in this, but it still must be called out.

      Third, every Republican President since Reagan has been called "Hitler". Yes, every single one. How can you expect to be taken seriously now that your comparing Trump to Hitler is just yet another hyperbolic exaggeration?

      Fourth, at least to my generation and our elders (I was born in 1964), such posturing looks ignorant, and that is the kindest of all possible interpretations.

      So thanks for stopping this nonsense.

      1. Danny 2 Silver badge

        felixk,

        You have no idea how quickly fascism snowballs.

        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/

        A Proud Boy wearing a shirt with the acronym 6MWE combined with a fascist symbol was seen in D.C. protesting the election of Joe Biden.

        Claim

        "6MWE" stands for "6 million wasn't enough" — a reference to the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust.

        Rating

        True

        Can you name another US President whose supporters actively claimed to be nazis, and who that President praised and encouraged?

        1. chivo243 Silver badge

          One of the first feeds I saw "which looked like a lame mosh pit" and I think there as a Nazi flag waved in front of the camera. Sorry for the twitter link, it's the only place I can find the footage...

          https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1346881968819105792

          Would anyone from Portland or Seattle like to comment on the relatively calm riot in DC? Where were the Chicago cops from the 1968 riots? They would have busted some heads. I think we've seen an attempt to create another Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, 911. A very poor attempt. An out of work voice actor in pseudo Native American garb with red, white and blue face paint? Storm the capitol and then take selfies and act like drunken frat boys? Great plan! All about the 'Gram...

          1. Robert 22

            It might seem like a slapdash affair, but so do most failed coup d'etats. I would surmise that at least some of those involved thought they would be feted as heroes after executing those awful Democrats and especially that treasonous Pence guy. It does seem that some decision makers were involved - among other things, there is the lack of preparations and the otherwise inexplicable delay in getting the National Guard out.

      2. LDS Silver badge

        Hitler, Lenin, Mao, etc. didn't take full power suddenly in one night. Nor they started large scale concentration camps and genocides immediately. What you see in a one-hour documentary may span several years. Some of them failed first and then tried again.

        No other president, Republican or not, incited a mob to attack the Congress to stop an electoral proclamation he didn't like. That's how wannabe dictators act - when they aren't able to secure their re-election poisoning their competitors before, or jail them. Just, it looks more like Mussolini, who while Fascists marched towards the true Capitol, was in Milan, ready to try to escape to Switzerland if things went wrong... a man who menaced, when he got the power:

        «Potevo fare di questa Aula sorda e grigia un bivacco di manipoli:

        potevo sprangare il Parlamento e costituire un Governo esclusivamente di fascisti.

        Potevo: ma non ho, almeno in questo primo tempo, voluto.»

        Feel free to translate, and compare to the actual events...

        1. felixk

          Thanks for explaining about the documentary vs. reality. Regrettably, I still got my knowledge from books, and from survivors; born an Austrian in 1964, that worked for me. The documentary would have failed me anyway, as I don't even have an idiot box. Books FTW.

          So I finally broke down, grabbed the transcript of Trump's one-hour speech (I blame you for making me inflict this on myself) and read it. No incitement to violence. No "fighting words". One or two sentences come close, but actual lawyers (not lawyers-turned-pols) say they fall short of the test applied by a court.

          Trump's speech was a far cry from the statements that Harris, Pelosi and their friends offered when rioting mobs set fire to cities all over. If those words were below the incitement threshold, then, in equity, so were Trump's.

          I have "no dog in this fight", the saying goes, I believe. But what your so-called media and the big tech companies have done in terms of partisanships will haunt you and your countrymen (assuming you are an American, sorry!).

          More importantly, at least to me, is whether Biden and Harris will reinstate Obama's fawning stance towards Iran. I would hate to see Israel nuked, even if Obama wouldn't mind so much.

          Cheers,

          F.

      3. low_resolution_foxxes Silver badge

        Thanks for this post Felix. I consider myself a centrist with Liberal tendencies, a respect for the good parts of capitalism (and a hatred for the shit parts).

        It baffles me how far some left wingers have disconnected from reality in recent years. Many seem only capable of parroting whatever the latest populist far-left narrative is.

        I was scared of the "far right" for most of my life, but bizarrely I now feel that the biggest threats to society, have come from far-left violent "professionals". You literally cannot reason with these people. Feelings have become more important than objective facts.

        1. 45RPM Silver badge

          ‘Feelings have become more important that facts’. It’s an interesting point, and you can see the truth of it in the language that people use. By and large, the far right use epithets like ‘snowflake’ or ‘butthurt’ to describe their opponents, and they try to tell their opponents to shut up (because they won, or some other such spurious argument). This is because, to them, the feelings are the facts.

          The centrists and the left use epithets like ‘idiot’, ‘fool’ and ‘stupid’ to describe their opponents and try to engage them in conversation. As I’m doing now. This is because, to them, the evidence is the facts and we feel that it’s important to engage with people, to lance the boil of misinformation.

          We shouldn’t use epithets like fool or idiot, it’s true. And I’m guilty of that too. But it’s very difficult not to when people wilfully follow conspiracy theories and refer dismissively to the articles of experts and the evidence as just MSM.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        A Failed Hitler

        "Kindly restrict those comparisons to situations that are actually on the scale of National Socialism and genocide – say, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and their ilk."

        Mock outrage aside.

        Trump is just a failed Hitler, his coup attempt followed the game plan but he just didn't have the numbers.

        Was Hitler, Hitler *before* he achieve his coup? Yes. Was Hitler, Hitler *before* he opened his first death camp? Yes.

        Trump's coup was nipped in the bud. The Covid deaths (~Mao starved his people with a food export drive + inability to admit his own mistake), are projected to be ~700K or so from Trump. Your attempt to polish that Trump-turd will not bring them back. Your attempt to polish that Republican-enabler-turd will not undo their complicity.

        @"every Republican President since Reagan has been called "Hitler"

        He's the first to try to overthrow the election with a mob attack on Capitol Hill. Did "every Republican" do that? No. Did Reagan do that? No. But Hitler did! Therefore is he more like Reagan or Hitler? Hitler of course!

        "Fourth, at least to my generation and our elders"

        You were a 60's child, and you do not speak for your elders or others. You did not fight Hitler, and would not therefore have had a chance to nip Hitler in the bud before the death camps. From your comments you would have gone into denial about it till it was too late.

        So thanks for nothing. Nobody can rely on your judgement of history, because you will only ever act *AFTER* a genocide.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: A Failed Hitler

          "The Covid deaths (~Mao starved his people with a food export drive + inability to admit his own mistake), are projected to be ~700K or so from Trump."

          Yes. COVID-19 deaths in the USA currently equate to a 9/11 death toll every 13 or so hours. That's a sobering thought.

          1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

            Re: A Failed Hitler

            COVID-19 deaths in the USA currently equate to a 9/11 death toll every 13 or so hours

            As of 10 January 2021, there have been >369 000 Americans who have succumbed to the virus (3 895 daily deaths).

            The amount of deaths has easily surpassed the amount of American KIA from the Vietnam War (211 454) or American KIA from World War I (320 518). (Source)

            Anyone who thinks that COVID-19 is just a hoax need to go to one of the hospital and see for themselves.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: A Failed Hitler

              As of 10 January 2021, there have been >369 000 Americans who have succumbed to the virus (3 895 daily deaths).

              citation needed

              Don't confuse deaths within 28 days of a positive covid test as deaths directly caused by the virus. Especially not over Winter, when common'ol garden influenza typicall kills thousands of Americans. CDC still reports those, it's just there's been a bad habit of conflating actual cause of death with test results.

      5. Snake Silver badge

        Re: Every Republican president since Reagan

        Hey, the conservatives were calling Obama the Antichrist

        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=obama+antichrist&t=fpas&ia=web

        I think "Hitler" would be considered an upgrade.

      6. 45RPM Silver badge

        There’s hardly any point in responding because others have already done so very eloquently. But…

        First, because budget Hitler failed. Thankfully. I think that there can be little doubt that he would have built concentration camps had he succeeded. We are, after all, talking about a man who came to power on a wave of chants to lock up his opponents, who has had a record number of executions (for the US, at least) during his presidency, who used secret police (unmarked uniforms and police vehicles), and who’s biggest supporters (like Guliani) have called for opponents to be beheaded. Let’s not forget how he treated immigrants and separated families either.

        Second, no I didn’t. I called him, with some justification, budget Hitler. At no point did I claim that he’d been a success or gotten as far as starting a genocide. Although, given his track record of stoking religious and racial hatred, I think that he might have gotten around to this eventually. Thankfully, it seems that he won’t get the chance now - at least if the GOP can find its marbles.

        Third. Not by me. And whilst some comparisons are hyperbole others aren’t. Sometimes you can point at a bird and call it a duck and you’ll be right.

        Fourth. Well done. You have no idea what my age is. Its none of your business and irrelevant to the discussion. However, I would point out that your critical thinking skills are barely at kindergarten level.

        Fifthly, I ain’t stopping nuttin’

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "budget Hitler"

          Five 'n' Dime Hitler, surely?

        2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          First, because budget Hitler failed. Thankfully. I think that there can be little doubt that he would have built concentration camps had he succeeded.

          You don't need Trump for that. Any Dem could do, especially NY Dems..

          https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a416

          Section 1. The public health law is amended by adding a new section

          2120-a to read as follows:

          § 2120-A. REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF CASES, CONTACTS AND CARRIERS WHO

          ARE OR MAY BE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH; OTHER ORDERS. 1. THE PROVISIONS

          OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE UTILIZED IN THE EVENT THAT THE GOVERNOR

          DECLARES A STATE OF HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO AN EPIDEMIC OF ANY COMMUNI-

          CABLE DISEASE.

          Wonder if that passes, if 'TDS' will be declared a communicable disease? As for the N word, I've pointed out before that Trump's son-in-law is Jewish, and that Trump seems to have brokered peace deals between Israel and a bunch of states that were previously a tad hostile towards it.

          Let’s not forget how he treated immigrants and separated families either.

          How could we forget those terrible ICE cages built during the Obama/Biden era. Or the heartbreaking photo opportunity from NY's favorite bar maid-

          https://www.rt.com/usa/462837-aoc-parking-lot-detention-center/

          1. First Light Silver badge

            Civil commitment is a perfectly legal, US-wide strategy that has been in use for years for other diseases. Like when a guy refused to take his TB meds in NYC and they locked him up for it. It happens in ALL states.

            You can let go of your pearls now.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Civil commitment is a perfectly legal, US-wide strategy that has been in use for years for other diseases.

              Yup. Much the same in the UK with notifiable diseases. But if it's already the norm.. Why the new proposal for NY?

              (Easily answered if you read it, ie it modifies established practices to allow detention without trial. Or medical tests.)

              1. 45RPM Silver badge

                I think that the problem is that so many people have lapped up conspiracy theories about COVID not being a thing, vaccination being some sort of weird conspiracy to microchip everyone, and masks being unhealthy that it has now become necessary to underline the rules in bloody thick marker.

                You know the sort of imbeciles I’m talking about. The kind of people who still think that Trump is a good egg, and that the GOP has any kind of moral backbone.

              2. First Light Silver badge

                It is NOT LAW.

                It was first brought in in 2015 for discussion as a response to Ebola and has not been passed yet. Do some damn research. https://13wham.com/news/local/ny-assemblyman-proposal-would-isolate-people-potentially-dangerous-to-public-health

  16. low_resolution_foxxes Silver badge

    With respect, I think we should be careful and nuanced about how we describe the "deadly intrusion and riot". Videos show the police basically left the barriers open for the protestors to come in, and the only deaths we've had confirmed so far are: 1 unarmed lady (an 8 year air force veteran, who was fatally shot in the neck by police, for poking her head through a window inside the building), 1 police officer who had a heart attack and 1 protestor (with a history of heart problems) having a fatal heart attack.

    By all means, the Donald has been a clown president, but I am disturbed over the media narratives of "mostly peaceful left wing riots" (40+ dead and 300+ arsons) vs a "deadly far-right riot on the capital" (4 deaths, of which at least 3 were not caused by any violent act by the protestors).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What's a few deaths. It's only one coup, every President does it, Whatabout her emails! Whatabout BENGHAZI!

      BEN-GHA-ZI!

      Trump raised a mob to overturn the US democracy, and the press is overreacting? Really? It's like his 3rd or 4th attempt to overturn this election?

      He's got 11 days left and still might attempt more coups with the levers of power available to him, but something something left wing, look over there it's ANTIFA!

      It's pathetic.

      It's like Senator Susan vote to acquit President Trump in his Senate impeachment trial, saying he has learned "a pretty big lesson" over his dealings with Ukraine. Yeh he learned there are no consequences to his crimes.

      So you might trust him, low_resolution_foxes, not to have another coup, but there's no reason why anyone else should.

      1. low_resolution_foxxes Silver badge

        I appreciate your comments.

        I don't think we saw a coup attempt, I think we saw a bitter and goofy guy having a final tantrum before he's kicked out of office, while his supporters had a final protest. Compared to the Portland 100+ days of rioting (where the far left antifa types went as far as setting fire to the local Mayor's House, a building apartment with 50+ residents), I think this "riot" was relatively harmless.

        He seems to have backed the f down and realised his tone shouldn't have been quite so angry, although frankly what he actually said wasn't that heinous. He does at least seem prepared to transition to Biden in a more conciliatory manner now (thank God).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "I don't think we saw a coup attempt...we saw a bitter and goofy guy having a final tantrum"

          #StopTheSteal The end game is clearly flagged in their one tag. Clearly coordinated too, with Trump giving the orders and working the Senators by phone as the mob attacked them in their chambers.

          Yeh I get it, you deflect, downplay and delay. Words like "goofy" and "tantrum" are so much cutsier than "molotov" and "ied" and "murder".

          He has 10 days left, Twitter says they were planning a second attack 17th January, with each day he gets more desperate.

          1. Robert 22

            The ironic thing is that the guy who is screaming the loudest about the "steal" is the one who is pulling out all the stops to steal the election.

      2. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        So you might trust him not to have another coup, but there's no reason why anyone else should

        Think further.

        What stops Donald from organizing another one AFTER he leaves the WH?

        American wheels of justice turns s l o w l y. Who knows, by the time the American courts are able to make a decision on the 06 January 2021 "coup" it may already be 2024 and, G0d forbid, Donald Trump got elected for a second term.

        Donald can easily hide behind the "Freedom of Speech" skirt and any hack, ANY HACK, of a lawyer, like Rudy Giuliani can easily get it delayed.

        1. First Light Silver badge

          The Southern District of NY and the Manhattan DA and the NYS AG Letitia James are waiting to pounce. And Deutsche Bank wants its money back. He'll be too busy in depositions to do anything.

    2. RuffianXion

      "4 deaths, of which at least 3 were not caused by any violent act by the protestors"

      ALL of those deaths (of which there are 5 confirmed) were caused by that mob. If they hadn't stormed the Capitol building all those people would still be alive.

      1. low_resolution_foxxes Silver badge

        For brevity and all our collective sanity, I will agree with you on the basis you hold the Democrats responsible for the 40+ deaths and hundreds of arson attempts from the left wing side?

        It's only fair. The Democrats even paid bail for their protestors when they were arrested (and usually only the worst violent protestors were arrested). I doubt the Republicans will post bail for anyone accused of attacking police - something the Democrats did HUNDREDS of times during their protests. Google "Kamala Harris protest bail funds", heck they even bailed out an alleged child rapist who was one of their protestors

        https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12749711/black-lives-matter-bail-criminals-kamala-harris/

        1. 45RPM Silver badge

          Hmm. You know that The Sun is a Murdoch rag, don't you? The same wellspring of misinformation that is Fox News. I'm not saying that this story isn't true, but the nuance will have been lost - and this is pure Whataboutism, designed to discredit all but a far right agenda. The Sun comes down on the wrong side of history almost as frequently as the Daily Mail does, and is a less reliable source of quality news than even Viz - which does, at least, know right from wrong (it, at least, knows that its sense of humour is VERY wrong!)

          1. Robert 22

            The RW media tried to blame anti-fa for the violence on January 6, but had to abandon that line of lying as it became obvious that the major culprits were Trump fanatics.

        2. First Light Silver badge

          Are you including in that 40 the two liberals killed by 17 year-old right wing nutjob Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha? Or liberal protestor Garret Foster in Austin killed by a conservative? I assume not. Or the deputy killed by the Boogaloo Boy from the Air Force in California? Or the federal security guard he also killed in Oakland and tried to make it look like it was BLM? Most of those deaths were not BY liberals they were OF liberals by RWNJs. They were shot for exercising their right to protest.

          Also, several of the arsons were committed by other RWNJs making it look like BLM. I'm not going to give a link because I doubt you will change your mind.

      2. low_resolution_foxxes Silver badge

        PS how did the 5th die? I can't find any details, except one site that suggests a lady protestor may have been critically injured falling off scaffolding (hmm, Darwinian levels of stupidity, but not technically a far-right hate crime in itself).

        I tried checking CNN, as if there was a devious Republican element they would be sure to report it.

        1. Shooter

          Trampled to death by the crowd.

          While wearing a "Don't Tread On Me" flag as a cape.

          https://www.salon.com/2021/01/08/pro-trump-protesters-who-was-crushed-to-death-in-capitol-riot-carried-dont-tread-on-me-flag-_partner/

          I can't find the source for the cape part, but the flag is confirmed by multiple sources.

          1. low_resolution_foxxes Silver badge

            Ahhh feck, that's a pretty nasty way to go. My condolences to her family, trampled... god.

    3. Muppet Boss Bronze badge
      Joke

      >By all means, the Donald has been a clown president, but I am disturbed over the media narratives of "mostly peaceful left wing riots" (40+ dead and 300+ arsons) vs a "deadly far-right riot on the capital" (4 deaths, of which at least 3 were not caused by any violent act by the protestors).

      It is so interesting to see how not only the media but also US tech companies are bravely taking sides. Spectating from the outside, blocking Trump and Parler does look similar to silencing "dangerous" views online in China and blocking "harmful" platforms such as Facebook. Only in China there was a court decision, and in the US tech companies seem to not need any court when judging what is "inciting" and what is not. The Trumpistas might need to learn a thing or two about Tor, VPNs and avoiding blocks if they want their speech unmuted and uncensored. Surely, the American public knows better whom to block and whom to censor, I am definitely not challenging black-and-white views of the world (no pun intended, honestly).

      I was thinking of hinting that Android apps can easily be sideloaded and that Alibaba Cloud has 2 regions in the US after Amazon kicks out the Bad Guys. Upon further thinking though, this could possibly be perceived by someone as helping the Bad Guys to avoid the Good Guys' rightful ire so I would rather keep silent on that.

    4. First Light Silver badge

      The "unarmed lady" did not "poke her head through a window," she was trespassing in the non-public area of the chambers of government, with a violent mob that had attacked police officers and trashed the building, in an effort to prevent the concluding act of a fair election their idiot candidate lawfully lost.

      They were about to enter a higher-security area and a gun was pointed right at her. She jumped up to climb through the window and get into that area. She was a 14-year Air Force veteran with National Guard riot control training, so she damn well knew what was coming next.

      These people have a massive sense of entitlement - the US is "their" country, it's "their" government and "their" President. Frankly there should have been massive arrests. But only 30 arrests the first night because white privilege.

  17. DenTheMan

    No special dispensation for ex presidents.

    Trump is now 'just another nutcase'.

    Move along folks.

    1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: No special dispensation for ex presidents.

      ^^^^

      Trump a bigly nutcase in a class of his own and gives the rest of us a bad name

  18. chivo243 Silver badge

    dev/null

    sounds like a nice place for him, he can go in, we can never get him back, but still not far enough away for my liking.

  19. Trigun Bronze badge

    To be fair Trump not being on twitter might actually be a good thing for him from a mental perspective as the platform has become a toxic cesspit of hate. If you're on it I recommend leaving it as everyone I know who has hasn't regretted it.

    As for Trumps twitter remarks: On the face of it they don't seem to directly incite violence from what I can see (maybe I'm being naive) and I think this is more that twitter were just after an excuse to get rid of him.

    At this point Trump really needs to just admit he lost and transition to being a private citizen again quietly, but that doesn't seem to be in his nature and he doesn't appear to have the wisdom to perceive that the US needs stability more than anything and not more division.

    Parlor-wise: I don't know how good or bad it is on there so it might be as bad as this article indicates, but I also think the somewhat left-leaning silicon valley patforms have been itching to get rid of the competition as well. There is a reason Parlor exists: It's a reaction to the bias that many have been perceiving elsewhere online. Not sure if getting rid of it will reduce tensions or increase them as there will be less opportunity for the disenfranchised to have their say and when that happens things can turn ugly(er).

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Mushroom

      "maybe I'm being naive".

      I think you are right there. Let's not forget that had Trump long ago accepted the simple fact that he lost fair and square, then nothing of this would have happened, but instead he has gone on repeating his wild lies constantly.

      How much lying do we have to accept from a president, from our elected politicians, before we have had enough of it.

      I don't think anything as deeply rotten has taken place in US history for a very long time.

      Also note, the Republican party has done nothing to prevent this shit from happening, instead there are guys like Ted Cruz hoping to ride on this river of shit towards fame.

      Worst of all, there are still normal decent people too who believe Trump won.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "I think you are right there. Let's not forget that had Trump long ago accepted the simple fact that he lost fair and square, then nothing of this would have happened, but instead he has gone on repeating his wild lies constantly."

        And not forgetting that Trump, even with his massive ego, knew there was a distinctly likely possibility that he would lose and was stoking the conspiracy fires about rigged elections long before the elections even started. ie if he won, then it would have been a fair election but if he lost, then "clearly" it would be because of rigging. He repeated that many times in the run up to the election.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I am pretty sure Trump does believe it. Do you really think he is lying?

        If you listen to the full 1 hour leaked phone call it sounds like he genuinely believes there is fraud, I don't think he is that convincing an actor. If you say he has been mislead and is propagating the lies he has been told then I would consider that a reasonable statement.

        "I don't think anything as deeply rotten has taken place in US history for a very long time." There are many people who might disagree with you say Edward Snowden for one. Additionally you might consider the DNC paying for fake documents to attempt to prove Russian collusion to impeach Trump. Perhaps you would consider AOC campaigning for a vote for Medicare for all and then when she can force one chooses not to.

        Not sure what you class as deeply rotten, or a very long time, perhaps define them, I am pretty sure I can come up with examples.

        1. Robert 22

          Of course he sounds like he believes that there was electoral fraud. Any con artist who is any good at their trade will tell you whatever it takes to get you to fall for whatever they are selling. Trump has a consistent record of these sorts of things. Have you ever heard him, even once accept blame for anything at all? It is always someone else's fault.

          In the call he threatened the officials involved with the election and demanded that they "find" enough votes to put him ahead. We also know that the senior Justice Department official in Atlanta (a Trump appointee) was forced out for not doing enough on Trump's behalf. Many of the Republican leaders who have gone along with his claims are doing so on the basis of a cynical calculation that it will be to their benefit. Others, perhaps because they fear for the safety of themselves and their families.

  20. spold
    Unhappy

    @realDonaldDumped - Awwww no more Covfefe :-(

  21. RonWheeler

    Whole system is broken

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/video-trump-supporters-stop-antifa-from-breaking-into-capitol_3649380.html/amp?utm_source=parler&__twitter_impression=true

  22. Crypto Monad

    "Google has simply kicked Parler out of the Android store"

    We have this thing called the World Wide Web. ISTM that if Parler became a website, then people could use an app called "a browser" to interact with it. What are Google and Apple going to do then?

    I have no sympathy for Trump and his thugs, but it does seem that the whole openness of the Internet could become under threat.

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: "Google has simply kicked Parler out of the Android store"

      This is the free market doing its thing. Do you want private companies to be legally obligated to carry content they don't wish to carry? Do you demand the right to stand in my front yard with a bullhorn without me being able to tell you to leave my property?

      This will all be fixed with the repeal of Section 230. Then social media will have to moderate with a MUCH heavier hand, and it won't be the wild west free for all with calls to violence without consequence. Just like newspapers couldn't publish an opinion article telling people to meet at the Capitol for a coup.

      1. Crypto Monad

        Re: "Google has simply kicked Parler out of the Android store"

        > This is the free market doing its thing. Do you want private companies to be legally obligated to carry content they don't wish to carry?

        Not at all. What I'm saying is, kicking out an app from an app store doesn't achieve much - except protecting the public image of Google and Apple - if all it does is cause them to shift to the web instead.

        The issue then will become who controls the wider Internet. As it turns out, this is now happening: AWS has publicly said it's going to kick Parler off their infrastructure by end of today (PST). Parler will presumably be looking for other hosting which has less rigorous terms of service, maybe across multiple providers in multiple jurisdictions.

        I have a genuine question: is what Parler is doing (i.e. *transmitting* speech which incites violence) actually illegal - in the US, and/or elsewhere? Does common-carrier apply to them, or not? If it is illegal, then one presumes this is a police matter, like selling drugs or distributing child porn.

        My own view (FWIW) is: if someone makes a threat or incites violence, though any channel, then they should be held personally accountable. Therefore a platform should not allow someone to be simultaneously anonymous (or pseudo-anonymous) *and* say anything they like without moderation. But if the identity of the speaker is verified and published, then let them be held directly accountable for what they say.

        I admit this is a very tough issue. Should flat-earthers be allowed to push their theories? If yes, then what about anti-vaxers or covid deniers? Since anti-vax and anti-covid propaganda demonstrably does cost lives, should it be made illegal? Or is society served better by leaving such speech legal, but trust the distribution platforms to moderate it out, purely for their own selfish commercial reasons?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Google has simply kicked Parler out of the Android store"

          @"What is Parler doing that is actually illegal"

          It's *users* are plotting a 16th/17th January armed coup. Since that is a crime, and Google and Apple's terms of service forbid such apps, they got kicked off the app stores.

          To do otherwise would make you party to the conspiracy charge.

          They were plotting that Jan 16th/17th attack as early as January 4th. I.e. this second coup plot was in place *before* the 6th January protest!

          If you wondered why those Republican Senators and Congressmen tried to delay the certification by 10 days (from 6th January to 16th January), here we have coordination between the Republicans and this coup plot. It would have delayed certification of the result till the second attack on Capitol hill. And that attack aims to stop the inauguration of Biden!

          Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, almost 100 Republicans and 10 Republican Senators involved in that plot.

        2. Jonjonz

          Re: "Google has simply kicked Parler out of the Android store"

          To answer your question, flat earthers are always free to express their opinion, it is just if they want to do it globally they need to a) buy their own Internet service provider and b) buy their own social media platform. Social media and the internet are not public commons, they are private property.

          In man's/corporation's (thanks to Citizens United) home/property, they have every right to boot you out if you day something that offends them.

          If flat earthers can't afford the price of owning a global communications platform that is just too bad for them.

        3. Lars Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: "Google has simply kicked Parler out of the Android store"

          "Should flat-earthers be allowed to push their theories? If yes, then what about anti-vaxers or covid deniers? Since anti-vax and anti-covid propaganda demonstrably does cost lives, should it be made illegal.........".

          They have something called education for all kids in many countries.

  23. Number6

    Twitter is being a good old capitalist company. They've made a business decision that they will lose more by not shutting down his feed than they would by letting him continue. The same with Facebook and Instagram.

    Trump could always create a TikTok account and use that.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      1. First Light Silver badge

        Let them use Weibo.

  24. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    BigMac sales

    BigMac sales figures are predicted to go down at the McDonalds nearest to The White House

  25. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    Chinese Takeout

    Someone better not play a prank on Trump when he next orders a BigMac - When Trump opens the McDonalds paperbag to find not a BigMac but a Chinese takeaway meal. That would cause a fit of rage and he may "reach of the button"

  26. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Trump on Tik-Tok?

    Didn't he want to ban that?

    Well folks, I'm sure that before June 2021, we'd see

    Trump TV

    Trump Social Media

    and

    a full-blown Trump Media network

    That's what that $400M+ he's fundraised for since Nove 2020 was for.

    He might be out of Office but as Trump Jnr said, 'We will be here for a long time yet'.

  27. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

    Kompromat

    If there is any, Putin may be waiting to have some fun at an opportune moment

  28. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    Happy

    Hey, Donald! Your creditors want to know what you are doing after you leave office. They want to have a "nice and friendly chat" with you.

    Something about "loan repayment holiday", I heard.

    Trump's longtime banker at Deutsche Bank resigns

    No pressure, Donald.

  29. A random security guy Bronze badge

    If trump uses nukes

    If nukes are used against Russia or China there will be retaliation and trump may be targeted by them. So, Russia and China are out. Plus he loves Russia.

    That leave him Iran and northKorea.

    Nuking Iran may impact his property value.

    Tha leaves him with North Korea.

  30. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

    Donald Trump breaks with McDonalds

    BREAKING NEWS! BREAKING NEWS!

    Everyone knows that Donald likes fastfoods, like McDonalds), however, it seems that Donald has put McDonalds in the "bad books" after Ronald McDonald came to visit and asked Donald a question.

    And the question was, "Mr. President, I get paid $7.30 per hour to act like a clown. What is your excuse?"

  31. Jonjonz

    Years late and still open to let some other fascist Nazi bozo whip up hate and violence in the future.

    230 needs to go.

    Speech with out libel is seditionist graffiti.

    1. genghis_uk Silver badge

      Hardly a day goes by without someone someone blaming s230 for something that is nothing to do with s230...

      If you want to have an opinion on the easily read law, then please.ease do a small bit of research rather than re-quote incorrect interpretations. You only have to look at my previous posts to get number of resources.. he'll, I'm not even American and I understand it!

      El Reg needs to do an s230 primer - it affects the comments here as much as Facebook or twitter. A bit of education may help

      1) a service provider is not responsible for the speech of others on their service. This is does not provide cover for illegal speech! If the provider posts something then it is still liable for their own speech. What you write is still covered by the 1st Amendment but has to conform to the rules given by the service.

      2) a service provider can moderate posts that do not meet their published standards

      Basically you have the right to say what you want but [service provider] does not have to host it...

      The intent of s230 was not to create an unbiased twitter, it was there to allow lots of twitter-like services to grow without being encumbered by lawsuits. Parler came about because of s230 protections, el reg is protected... you are protected when you forward an email!

      Remove s230 and you have one of two scenarios - either sites stop moderating entirely (they are not liable if they do not know what is being said) and you get the worst form of 8chan, or they moderate everything and you get a very different experience where posts take weeks to appear due to the amount of traffic (it will get shorter as everyone leaves in droves).

      Nothing will be perfect and moderating on this sort of scale is impossible but they largely get the valance right

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Suggestion

    I'm thinking this may already be in the works but...

    All of those who participated in this terrorist attack against the US government can easily be tracked down.

    Cell phone tower records can be tracked to names on accounts using triangulation of cell phone location, time and date.

    All of those who have social media accounts are tracked by the companies. They contain names, GPS location data, email addresses, cell phones, images and videos by the perpetrators.

    All of that data can be used as evidence.

    Of course there are some who probably may be using burner phones and burner cell phone accounts, but even that data can be tracked. Maybe there are some who try to cover their tracks by using compromised information to do so. If there were professional foreign spies instigating matters...they will probably be impossible to track.

    There you go. It's a matter of time before they get caught, and they can track all data on January 20th.

    1. First Light Silver badge

      Re: Suggestion

      FBI is already on it.

  33. tip pc Silver badge

    Indisputable trump if the world

    It’s undeniable that trump is a dangerous nut job.

    I’m just as worried that the guy that 4 years ago won the vote for leader of the free world has been Silenced by the largest most influential media companies on the planet.

    I’m no Trump supporter but censorship and no platforming are a severe worry.

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Indisputable trump if the world

      Getting kicked out of someplace private you came and tried to burn down is not censorship.

    2. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Re: Indisputable trump if the world

      It's not censorship.

      Twitter, FB and all the rest have Ts&Cs and if you breach them you can and indeed should be banned. The problem I have with this action is not that it happened now, but that it did not happen years ago. Trump has repeatedly broken the terms and conditions of just about every social media platform he has used, but the closest the platforms seem to have come to censuring him is flagging his post with a warning. The argument that he is president and as such is above being banned is nonsense. There is the official POTUS account, but he chose not to use that.

      So he has not been removed from the platform. He has been forced to use the official account. Of course other folks - mostly White House staff have access to that account - but that doesn't mean Trump doesn't.

      I think it would be a good idea if in future all elected representatives have their personal accounts disabled for the duration of their office and be forced to use only the official account of their office.

      Remember there was some quite heated discussion a few years back over whether Trump had the write to block people. The argument in Trump's favour was that his twitter account was personal and not the official presidential account. Of course he was overruled in that case, but had he been forced to use the POTUS account then surely it would never have been open to discussion.

      However in the above case Trump actually argues against himself and his apologists in the current case. Trump thought it within his power to block and therefore effectively censor anybody he diagreed with, thus infringing their first ammendment rights. He and his apologists are now complaining that it's unfair for him to be banned and therefore censored.

      My own view however is that the whole freedom of speech argument in terms of social media is moot. The first amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Neither of which covers social media. The closest it could possibly come to social media would be if you could classify the platforms themselves as equivalent to the press. If you do that then surely editorial freedom means the platforms have the right to publish or not publish as they choose.

  34. TheMeerkat Bronze badge

    It is disconcerting how many people who would normally complain about big corporation getting too much control of the media are now supporting a big corporation banning a president who just recently got millions of votes.

    It is called hypocrisy.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is this really offensive?

    I don't see what's offensive in these 2 tweets.

    I would be worried for freedom of speech if someone I liked was banned over this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is this really offensive?

      My guess is that Twitter didn't ban him for saying he wouldn't go to the inauguration - it banned him for the tweet he tried to send just before they pulled he lead from his Fisher Price tablet. And I would guess that was some lame pseudo apology that crossed the glorification of violence boundary. But basically who cares? Gay cakes!

    2. First Light Silver badge

      Re: Is this really offensive?

      His point about not being at the Inauguration was seen by some as a suggestion that any conduct is permitted since his personal safety will not be endangered.

      Remember Qanon acts like a game and those people STILL believe he has some ultimate plan up his sleeve to create "The Storm."

  36. Mips
    Childcatcher

    Dear Donald

    Never mind you can always use Tiktok

    1. First Light Silver badge

      Re: Dear Donald

      Or Weibo.

    2. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Dear Donald

      Hey Donald,

      Your village called and they asked you not to come back.

  37. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Too little too late

    Twitter just tries to buy itself a new virginity. Twitter is Trump's accomplice in his disinformation campaign.

    1. genghis_uk Silver badge

      Re: Too little too late

      Twitter has at least tried to fact check Trump over the last 9 month or so. That does not excuse the last 5 or 6 years of Trump BS but shows it they realised the effect his lies were having during a pandemic.

      Facebook on the other hand, has actively tried to find reasons not to censure (note, not censor!) Trump at all. I was very surprised when they locked his account

      1. First Light Silver badge

        Re: Too little too late

        Zuckerberg is his bud.

  38. hoola Silver badge

    Damage Limitation/Mitigation

    Trump is so close to the end of his term that I would assume he and his supporters would delay until the 20th. At that point everything becomes a non-issue from a POTUS scenario.

    If he can avoid being impeached does it change what can happen after he leaves office?

    Is he just going to give up and hide under a rock when he leaves office?

    Is a noisy and very public removal now a better outcome overall?

    If they just wai

    I don't have the answers but there must be people on both sides of the fiasco running the pros and cons of the options.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Damage Limitation/Mitigation

      The best that can happen is that he will be prevented for ever to run for president again.

      I don't think GOP will be able to recover if he is still around, perhaps GOP should take a long quiet walk in the desert for a long time to get rid of the smell of Trumpism.

  39. ShortStuff

    You Could Be Next

    Don't complain when this happens to you.

    Remember this ---

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    1. Efer Brick

      Re: You Could Be Next

      First they "came for" those that violated the terms and conditions.

      Then they came for ...?

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What's the difference between the land of Mordor and the U.S. capitol building?

    One does not simply walk into Mordor.

  41. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Creditors come a-knocking ...

    Trump dropped by biggest lender Deutsche Bank for future business: NYT

    Deutsche Bank will not do future business with Trump - NYT

    Trump’s business prospects just got dimmer as Wall Street backs away from tarnished brand

    “Presumably he’ll do what he’s done at least five times in his career, which is strategic bankruptcy,” said William Black, associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

    In 2011, Donald Trump told Newsweek that "I do play with the bankruptcy laws – they're very good for me" as a tool for trimming debt." To Forbes, Trump said that "I’ve cut debt -- by the way, this isn’t me personally, it’s a company. ... Basically I’ve used the laws of the country to my advantage and to other people’s advantage just as Leon Black has, Carl Icahn, Henry Kravis has, just as many, many others on top of the business world have." Altogether, Trump has filed six times for Chapter 11 bankruptcies for his businesses, some of them three times under different corporate structuring and names.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022