Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JFK-1

    2793

  • Maple Leaf

    2199

  • Justin Z

    1584

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    1484

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, I P Knightley said:

Things are not going your way when you have Batshit Giuliani leaning over, advising you to pipe down. (Unless he was absent-mindedly reaching out for a handful of boob.

 

The eyebrow flick at 1:24 when she throws out her stinger, "what did you guys do sump'n crazy to it?". Do we know who she is and why she's being given the time of day?

 

See below, although she doesn't seem to be entirely sure herself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fancy a brew said:

:wow:

 

 

 

She looks like one of those girls who is absolutely wild in the sack, but will spend the next day crying and refusing to leave. 

 

I'm in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

 

 

 

Yeh, seen that earlier, Trump really does attract some of societies thickest racists, but then again maybe that's why he's popular with a certain demographic of Americans, who are more than happy to proclaim that Donald John Trump is just like us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo
On 02/12/2020 at 10:46, Justin Z said:

People actually on the left looking at Biden's cabinet like

 

Image

 

image.png.003ed7c8a57e40a91e196fe49b013ed9.png


I’m not a fan of Neera Tanden but I’m pretty sure that tweet is fake. I know she deleted a lot of (mainly anti-Republican) tweets so may be impossible to prove either way but it just wouldn’t make sense, and everyone who is tweeting it is using an identical screenshot, apparently from the last couple of days.

 

Edit: just found this:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/neera-tanden-didnt-tweet-hitler-was-certainly-controversial-but-no-one-gives-him-proper-credit-for-fighting-to-the-death-against-communism/
 


Anyway, what would make my head explode is if Rahm Emanuel gets a job in the administration. Hopefully the trial balloon on that has been deflated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
12 hours ago, RobboM said:

Incredible to realise that 1 full month after the election that votes are still being counted. Biden has now passed 81m and his lead over Trump close to 7m

Fantastic turnout which is one good point apart from Trump losing obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:


I’m not a fan of Neera Tanden but I’m pretty sure that tweet is fake. I know she deleted a lot of (mainly anti-Republican) tweets so may be impossible to prove either way but it just wouldn’t make sense, and everyone who is tweeting it is using an identical screenshot, apparently from the last couple of days.

 

Edit: just found this:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/neera-tanden-didnt-tweet-hitler-was-certainly-controversial-but-no-one-gives-him-proper-credit-for-fighting-to-the-death-against-communism/
 


Anyway, what would make my head explode is if Rahm Emanuel gets a job in the administration. Hopefully the trial balloon on that has been deflated.

 

Thanks for checking me on that! I appreciate it.

 

To be fair, that didn't even really go after her credibility politically, which is less than zero. She is a union buster, a bully, has massive ties to Wall Street, and physically assaulted Bernie Sanders' eventual 2020 campaign manager. She reminds me so much of Priti Patel it makes me ill.

 

Rahm Emanuel would of course, also be two massive fingers rammed up progressives, but up American people from all walks of life in general, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RobboM said:


In court, however, Trump's lawyers are NOT claiming fraud

https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/

 

Indeed, which is telling. The thing is you can step up to a podium and tell the media and public at large pretty much anything you want to. As Trump does and as Alex Jones does daily.

But these lawyers cannot step into a court environment and spout utter pish without facing potential legal consequences. And they're not going to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox News propagandist Sean Hannity suggests that Donald Trump should pardon not just his children, but also himself.

Sean Hannity Pushing Trump to Pardon HIMSELF

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Trump rally about to start in Georgia, looks like a good crowd, shoulder to shoulder, few masks, no distancing, thousands dying and this mentally challenged loser, who was supposed to take care of this pandemic is encouraging this foolishness in his desperate attempts to lie, threaten, falsify his way back into the Presidency, its easy to be critical of Americans, but I just feel so sorry for the genuine people who believe in their Country and its system to be exposed now to this mentally disturbed despot who wants to as he has done all his life lie cheat and defraud to get his own way, and as he has done lose, and have to lie cheat and defraud to recover. A curse on those enablers who encourage him in his wantonness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Fox News propagandist Sean Hannity suggests that Donald Trump should pardon not just his children, but also himself.

Sean Hannity Pushing Trump to Pardon HIMSELF

 

 

 

Trump doesn't need to pardon himself.  What he needs to do is pardon everyone around him.  Why?  Because the only way any Federal authority will get useful corroborated evidence against him is by getting one or more of the key people around him to volunteer the evidence.  And the best (probably only) way to do that is as part of an immunity or plea-bargaining deal that saves them from a nasty conviction and sentence.  But if all the relevant key people already have immunity from prosecution, the threat of conviction and sentencing vanishes and it's game over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Trump doesn't need to pardon himself.  What he needs to do is pardon everyone around him.  Why?  Because the only way any Federal authority will get useful corroborated evidence against him is by getting one or more of the key people around him to volunteer the evidence.  And the best (probably only) way to do that is as part of an immunity or plea-bargaining deal that saves them from a nasty conviction and sentence.  But if all the relevant key people already have immunity from prosecution, the threat of conviction and sentencing vanishes and it's game over.

Pardon them for what? Would they not have to have convictions to pardon. And even if they didn't, would that not be admitting crimes and exposing his whole gang for criminality and treason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Trump doesn't need to pardon himself.  What he needs to do is pardon everyone around him.  Why?  Because the only way any Federal authority will get useful corroborated evidence against him is by getting one or more of the key people around him to volunteer the evidence.  And the best (probably only) way to do that is as part of an immunity or plea-bargaining deal that saves them from a nasty conviction and sentence.  But if all the relevant key people already have immunity from prosecution, the threat of conviction and sentencing vanishes and it's game over.

I'm sure I've read that part of receiving a pardon is waiving your fifth amendment rights, meaning they can be forced to talk or face jail if they don't.

I'm not 100% on this though, I never got round to looking into the premise or implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

I'm sure I've read that part of receiving a pardon is waiving your fifth amendment rights, meaning they can be forced to talk or face jail if they don't.

I'm not 100% on this though, I never got round to looking into the premise or implications.


Listeneing to a few US podcatss yesterday discussing this came up with this point on pardons. I've lifted this from the wiki entry on Nixon's pardon

"After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which states that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

I'm sure I've read that part of receiving a pardon is waiving your fifth amendment rights, meaning they can be forced to talk or face jail if they don't.

I'm not 100% on this though, I never got round to looking into the premise or implications.

 

You got it. Basically, the purpose of the (relevant part of the) fifth amendment is to protect people from aiding their own prosecution, regardless of what stage that's at. “Nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. This is why you have “the right to remain silent” as popularised in American cop shows and why this right extends all the way to the courtroom when an answer to a question would incriminate you.

 

As you know, it was common practice on this island to torture criminals until they confessed, for many centuries. This sort of practice is probably what Madison had in mind when he wrote the fifth.

 

2 hours ago, RobboM said:

"After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which states that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt"


This is actually a different issue in a legal sense. What Smithee's brought up is a very practical thing from a legal standpoint: If you've been pardoned, there's no danger to you any longer—the fifth amendment has become completely irrelevant because there's no prosecuting you for your crime. Remaining silent to protect yourself from prosecution no longer makes any sense. Therefore you've lost the right to remain silent when compelled—by a tribunal, for example—to give an answer. The waiver isn't built into the pardon per se, but it makes sense, practically speaking.

 

The holding in Burdick is good law at present but it hasn't been challenged at the Supreme Court for over a century and given the current composition of the court, I could see it being overturned.

 

Edit: Also, I haven't ever looked at Burdick super closely, but the text here has the feel of “dicta”, which is the Court going on about something that isn't actually at issue, legally speaking, in the present case, and therefore carries less weight still.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Smithee said:

I'm sure I've read that part of receiving a pardon is waiving your fifth amendment rights, meaning they can be forced to talk or face jail if they don't.

I'm not 100% on this though, I never got round to looking into the premise or implications.

 That has been widely suggested in the case of Michael Flynn who was just Pardoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the Georgia rally. Again my mind goes way back to the  thirties.  A despotic would be leader  who lies, twists facts and even by criticising the State elected leaders tell the crowd of in this case Republican voters that they used their valuable votes to elect State leaders who are incompetent and stupid.  In my evaluation of his talk in the things he did not say directly he is not giving up his leadership of the United States and again mu surmise is he is prepared to use means and people who agree with him and will do what it takes for him to stay. I am not sure violence is out of the question, he is a dangerous man to the United States and the rest o the World. It is frightening to me that he still has days of power as President of a powerful State, America and the weapons they hold, if I was Irani I would be very nervous, as seems consistent in all despots there is a series of symptoms that allow the untrained to question their mental stability and  garner a fear of how they will utilise the equipment available to them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Donald Trump says his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has tested positive for Covid-19.

The president wrote in a tweet: "Get better soon Rudy, we will carry on!"

Mr Giuliani, who has been leading the Trump campaign's legal challenges to the 2020 election results, is the latest person in the president's inner circle to be infected.

The president and his team have been criticised for shunning safety guidance. Mr Trump was ill in October.

Nearly 14.6 million people have been infected with Covid-19 in the US, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 281,234 people have died - the highest figures of any country in the world.

On Sunday, Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus task force co-ordinator, criticised the Trump administration for flouting guidelines and peddling "myths" about the pandemic.

"I hear community members parroting back those situations, parroting back that masks don't work, parroting back that we should work towards herd immunity," Dr Birx told NBC.

"This is the worst event that this country will face," she said.

Mr Giuliani, 76, has not commented publicly on his diagnosis.

It is not clear whether the former New York mayor is experiencing symptoms or when he caught the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sharpie said:

I watched the Georgia rally. Again my mind goes way back to the  thirties.  A despotic would be leader  who lies, twists facts and even by criticising the State elected leaders tell the crowd of in this case Republican voters that they used their valuable votes to elect State leaders who are incompetent and stupid.  In my evaluation of his talk in the things he did not say directly he is not giving up his leadership of the United States and again mu surmise is he is prepared to use means and people who agree with him and will do what it takes for him to stay. I am not sure violence is out of the question, he is a dangerous man to the United States and the rest o the World. It is frightening to me that he still has days of power as President of a powerful State, America and the weapons they hold, if I was Irani I would be very nervous, as seems consistent in all despots there is a series of symptoms that allow the untrained to question their mental stability and  garner a fear of how they will utilise the equipment available to them.

It's an incredible situation with 2 simultaneous shows going on.

On one hand, they're admitting again and again that there's no evidence or specific accusation of election fraud, meanwhile on the other hand Trump and his hard of thinking followers ignore all this and pretend there is.

It's utterly bizarre that so many buy his shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
7 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

President Donald Trump says his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has tested positive for Covid-19.

The president wrote in a tweet: "Get better soon Rudy, we will carry on!"

Mr Giuliani, who has been leading the Trump campaign's legal challenges to the 2020 election results, is the latest person in the president's inner circle to be infected.

The president and his team have been criticised for shunning safety guidance. Mr Trump was ill in October.

Nearly 14.6 million people have been infected with Covid-19 in the US, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 281,234 people have died - the highest figures of any country in the world.

On Sunday, Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus task force co-ordinator, criticised the Trump administration for flouting guidelines and peddling "myths" about the pandemic.

"I hear community members parroting back those situations, parroting back that masks don't work, parroting back that we should work towards herd immunity," Dr Birx told NBC.

"This is the worst event that this country will face," she said.

Mr Giuliani, 76, has not commented publicly on his diagnosis.

It is not clear whether the former New York mayor is experiencing symptoms or when he caught the virus.

Has he ever been seen wearing a mask? There's a decent chance he's passed it on to a fair few others including that drunk woman at the hearing the other day and that poor one that he farted over in the same hearing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been an uncomfortable elephant in the room during this whole thing but its gone so far it has to be said - if you're still buying what Trump's selling you're one thick *******. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Mr Giuliani, 76, has not commented publicly on his diagnosis.

It is not clear whether the former New York mayor is experiencing symptoms or when he caught the virus.

 

Makes you wonder - if he can't update his social media account on his state then maybe he is he struggling badly with it ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
31 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

President Donald Trump says his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has tested positive for Covid-19.

The president wrote in a tweet: "Get better soon Rudy, we will carry on!"

Mr Giuliani, who has been leading the Trump campaign's legal challenges to the 2020 election results, is the latest person in the president's inner circle to be infected.

The president and his team have been criticised for shunning safety guidance. Mr Trump was ill in October.

Nearly 14.6 million people have been infected with Covid-19 in the US, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 281,234 people have died - the highest figures of any country in the world.

On Sunday, Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus task force co-ordinator, criticised the Trump administration for flouting guidelines and peddling "myths" about the pandemic.

"I hear community members parroting back those situations, parroting back that masks don't work, parroting back that we should work towards herd immunity," Dr Birx told NBC.

"This is the worst event that this country will face," she said.

Mr Giuliani, 76, has not commented publicly on his diagnosis.

It is not clear whether the former New York mayor is experiencing symptoms or when he caught the virus.

Fake news.

He’s probably bottled it so he doesn’t have to look a complete tit in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Smithee said:

There's been an uncomfortable elephant in the room during this whole thing but its gone so far it has to be said - if you're still buying what Trump's selling you're one thick *******. 

 

It's hard to argue with that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Pardon them for what? Would they not have to have convictions to pardon. And even if they didn't, would that not be admitting crimes and exposing his whole gang for criminality and treason. 

 

A pardon can be granted by the President at any time and for any reason; the person receiving the pardon doesn't even have to be charged with an offence, or be under investigation for one (see Ford's open pardon of Nixon in September 1974).

 

 

17 hours ago, Smithee said:

I'm sure I've read that part of receiving a pardon is waiving your fifth amendment rights, meaning they can be forced to talk or face jail if they don't.

I'm not 100% on this though, I never got round to looking into the premise or implications.

 

Presidential pardons are to all intents and purposes unconditional - the only conditions that can prevent a presidential pardon are (i) it can only apply to Federal crimes, (ii) it can't apply to an offence subject to impeachment, and (iii) it has to be accepted by the recipient.  After pardoning Nixon, Ford maintained that the effect of a 1915 Supreme Court judgement was that a person who accepted a pardon was accepting their guilt for a crime, but that was Ford's opinion and it has never been explicitly stated or tested in the Supreme Court, and in any case it doesn't make logical sense because it could prevent a person gaining redress for a wrongful conviction.  Even if it were the case, the recipient of the pardon would retain his or her constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

A pardon can be granted by the President at any time and for any reason; the person receiving the pardon doesn't even have to be charged with an offence, or be under investigation for one (see Ford's open pardon of Nixon in September 1974).

 

 

 

Presidential pardons are to all intents and purposes unconditional - the only conditions that can prevent a presidential pardon are (i) it can only apply to Federal crimes, (ii) it can't apply to an offence subject to impeachment, and (iii) it has to be accepted by the recipient.  After pardoning Nixon, Ford maintained that the effect of a 1915 Supreme Court judgement was that a person who accepted a pardon was accepting their guilt for a crime, but that was Ford's opinion and it has never been explicitly stated or tested in the Supreme Court, and in any case it doesn't make logical sense because it could prevent a person gaining redress for a wrongful conviction.  Even if it were the case, the recipient of the pardon would retain his or her constitutional rights.

If the fifth amendment is based on the grounds that you may incriminate yourself, surely there are no grounds for declining to answer when you can no longer incriminate yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

If the fifth amendment is based on the grounds that you may incriminate yourself, surely there are no grounds for declining to answer when you can no longer incriminate yourself.

 

However, that is matter for the courts, not the prosecutors.  You could conceivably expose yourself to contempt of court proceedings, but most good lawyers would be able to keep you out of trouble on that score. 

 

The key to getting a conviction against any "mob boss" is to get the people around them to willingly part with testimony - but the willingly part is crucial.  The best way to do that is to have something big with which to threaten them.  If they can't be charged with a crime, you don't have any leverage.  You theoretically could subpoena them and get them to be embarrassed, or if you got really lucky they might lose some money to "purge their contempt".  But none of this is a real threat to the likes of an Ivanka or a Jared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

However, that is matter for the courts, not the prosecutors.  You could conceivably expose yourself to contempt of court proceedings, but most good lawyers would be able to keep you out of trouble on that score. 

 

The key to getting a conviction against any "mob boss" is to get the people around them to willingly part with testimony - but the willingly part is crucial.  The best way to do that is to have something big with which to threaten them.  If they can't be charged with a crime, you don't have any leverage.  You theoretically could subpoena them and get them to be embarrassed, or if you got really lucky they might lose some money to "purge their contempt".  But none of this is a real threat to the likes of an Ivanka or a Jared.

Yeah I hear you, the theory's one thing but how are you going to make someone say what they don't want to say without leverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.T.F.Robertson
4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

Has he ever been seen wearing a mask? There's a decent chance he's passed it on to a fair few others including that drunk woman at the hearing the other day and that poor one that he farted over in the same hearing. 

 

Your last bit gave me a giggle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.T.F.Robertson
4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

Has he ever been seen wearing a mask? There's a decent chance he's passed it on to a fair few others including that drunk woman at the hearing the other day and that poor one that he farted over in the same 

 

Two, in fact. 😩

 

Edited by J.T.F.Robertson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

A pardon can be granted by the President at any time and for any reason; the person receiving the pardon doesn't even have to be charged with an offence, or be under investigation for one (see Ford's open pardon of Nixon in September 1974).

 

 

 

Presidential pardons are to all intents and purposes unconditional - the only conditions that can prevent a presidential pardon are (i) it can only apply to Federal crimes, (ii) it can't apply to an offence subject to impeachment, and (iii) it has to be accepted by the recipient.  After pardoning Nixon, Ford maintained that the effect of a 1915 Supreme Court judgement was that a person who accepted a pardon was accepting their guilt for a crime, but that was Ford's opinion and it has never been explicitly stated or tested in the Supreme Court, and in any case it doesn't make logical sense because it could prevent a person gaining redress for a wrongful conviction.  Even if it were the case, the recipient of the pardon would retain his or her constitutional rights.

So basically said pardoned people can commit any crime til they die. That cannot be right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

So basically said pardoned people can commit any crime til they die. That cannot be right. 

Not necessarily 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Gentleman
7 hours ago, ri Alban said:

So basically said pardoned people can commit any crime til they die. That cannot be right. 

 

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

Not necessarily 

I don't think it is right. The legitimacy of pre-emptive pardons is yet to be determined. Nixon was hardly a precedent given the extraordinary circumstances which surrounded his pardons.

Even if a serving president can issue pre-emptive pardons, it would only be for 'crimes and misdemeanours' (potentially) committed during the term of his presidency. Not before, nor after.

Edited by John Gentleman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Smithee said:

There's been an uncomfortable elephant in the room during this whole thing but its gone so far it has to be said - if you're still buying what Trump's selling you're one thick *******. 

Well now you question...

 

This seems about right :)

 

 

 

Screenshot_20201207-125615_Samsung Internet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Well now you question...

 

This seems about right :)

 

 

 

Screenshot_20201207-125615_Samsung Internet.jpg

 

There'd be quite a few single-circle Venn diagrams you could make with that 20.51% of posters and some of their other “interesting” positions on things. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Trump told the crowd at the rally in Georgia:
“Blueberries, peppers, squash and cucumbers. Who does cucumbers around here?”
He added, as the crowd cheered:
“Because I like cucumbers. I’m the only one. I like cucumbers.”
 

 

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CavySlaveJambo
52 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

another day another court case chucked.

How many is that now? 
Also is It today or tomorrow that all court cases have to be finished? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting more and more convinced that Trump is not going to leave the White House voluntarily, despite everyone saying to him that it is all over he is not relenting one bit. If nothing else and I am sure it is in his considerations it will make Bidens big day second to what he is doing. It will be interesting to see if there are any disturbances how the police react, will they do their duty as prescribed or will they take a moderate approach to any Trump support violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SectionDJambo
3 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

I am getting more and more convinced that Trump is not going to leave the White House voluntarily, despite everyone saying to him that it is all over he is not relenting one bit. If nothing else and I am sure it is in his considerations it will make Bidens big day second to what he is doing. It will be interesting to see if there are any disturbances how the police react, will they do their duty as prescribed or will they take a moderate approach to any Trump support violations.

Biden's inauguration will, presumably, have severe restrictions on attendance numbers due to Covid 19. What are the chances that Trump comes out with the "I had a bigger audience than him" nonsense that he, ludicrously, tried when he said he had a bigger audience than Obama.

Then he'll probably tie that into the narrative that this shows that more people voted legally for him. 

For all the faults that America has had over the years, I would imagine that nobody ever thought that any President would bring so much ridicule to the office. It's almost like a tv comedy series. Except the comparisons with the European dictators of the 30s are very concerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
8 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

Biden's inauguration will, presumably, have severe restrictions on attendance numbers due to Covid 19. What are the chances that Trump comes out with the "I had a bigger audience than him" nonsense that he, ludicrously, tried when he said he had a bigger audience than Obama.

Then he'll probably tie that into the narrative that this shows that more people voted legally for him. 

For all the faults that America has had over the years, I would imagine that nobody ever thought that any President would bring so much ridicule to the office. It's almost like a tv comedy series. Except the comparisons with the European dictators of the 30s are very concerning.

If this soap opera was happening in N Korea the country would be getting ridiculed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SectionDJambo said:

Biden's inauguration will, presumably, have severe restrictions on attendance numbers due to Covid 19. What are the chances that Trump comes out with the "I had a bigger audience than him" nonsense that he, ludicrously, tried when he said he had a bigger audience than Obama.

Then he'll probably tie that into the narrative that this shows that more people voted legally for him. 

For all the faults that America has had over the years, I would imagine that nobody ever thought that any President would bring so much ridicule to the office. It's almost like a tv comedy series. Except the comparisons with the European dictators of the 30s are very concerning.


Tbh it's an opportunity for Biden to illustrate the difference between himself and Trump ie come out and say his own inauguration is much smaller than Trump's. That really doesn't matter at all, what matters is being able to believe a President is not a pathological liar and a President who's own ego does not come first when Covid infections would follow a large event. He could finish by saying the last time he was at an inauguration as VP it WAS a bigger deal than Trump's 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sharpie said:

I am getting more and more convinced that Trump is not going to leave the White House voluntarily, despite everyone saying to him that it is all over he is not relenting one bit. If nothing else and I am sure it is in his considerations it will make Bidens big day second to what he is doing. It will be interesting to see if there are any disturbances how the police react, will they do their duty as prescribed or will they take a moderate approach to any Trump support violations.

 

If he's still on the White House premises at the crack of noon on 20th January, he becomes a trespasser and he'll have to be forcibly removed. Like you, I wouldn't rule that out!

 

The Electoral College meets next Monday to cast their votes and confirm the final result. Even then it won't  get through to his thick head that he's lost. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ri Alban said:

So basically said pardoned people can commit any crime til they die. That cannot be right. 

 

According to the Supreme Court a pardon can be granted any time after commission of the crime, which means a pardon could not be used to give someone immunity from prosecution for future offences.  In Nixon's case, the pardon granted by Ford was for any federal crimes that he may have committed while he was President (I can't recall the exact wording).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kalamazoo Jambo changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (title updated)
  • Maple Leaf changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...