US Election 2020 Thread

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

And then get it done on the 7th, after mostly universal condemnation of what happened?

 

It was never not going to get done.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

And then get it done on the 7th, after mostly universal condemnation of what happened?

 

Ignore the rest. Convenient. 

[Brownie]

That was very interesting just now in Biden’s speech about Bernie.

[TheHowieLama]

22 minutes ago, Red Shift said:

The voter turnout was 66.3% of eligible voters. Capitalism is failing a lot of people in the worlds biggest single economy and yet 35% cant be bothered to to turn up to try to better their lives.

Interestingly New Zealand for example, does not figure % turnout against all eligible voters - only registered.

Why?

 

There are @ 200 mil registered voters in the US - so the turnout was about 78%.

 

 

[Juniper]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

Biden got one hell of a job on his hands..

 

 

 

Hahaha some Americans are fucking nuts. 

[Gnasher]

31 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

That is just poetic from start to finish. Fucking slag. You would though. Serious rodeo fuck that if you called her Hilary just as you hit the vinegar strokes 

If I was brave enough I'd whisper Barack Obama in her ear, but I'm not sure I'd live. Thinking of it they are not bad lookers these trumpett  bimbo's, Boris Johnson pulled one and she was unhinged. Heres another one, looney tunes 

 

 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/texas-woman-flew-on-private-jet-to-washington-d-c-to-storm-the-capitol/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

. 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

 Heres another one, looney tunes 

 

 

 

Just another working class American flying out by private jet.

[SasaS]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Ignore the rest. Convenient. 

What rest? When you try to analyze a political move, you look at what is there to be achieved and who will benefit, this can lead you to who is behind it.

It seems a more logical explanation to me that the point of the rally was to put pressure on those Republicans that were resisting Trumps wishes, show them who commands the grassroots, who can bring people to the streets. Create as much chaos over the lost election as possible, in order to further energize the electorate. That they eventually and actually stormed the parliament was an own goal. What they wanted was an image of the people gathered outside in protest of the injustice being committed inside, not the image of Mr. Shaman taking a new picture for his FB  profile in the Speakers seat. 

[Anubis]

I take it Alanis Morrissette was in DC the other day.

 

 

 

Feel sorry for this woman. Terrible way to die. And all for that fucking horrible orange shitbag.

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Anubis said:

I take it Alanis Morrissette was in DC the other day.

 

 

 

Feel sorry for this woman. Terrible way to die. And all for that fucking horrible orange shitbag.

You'd think most of these stories were made up if it wasnt the Trump mob, I mean a man tazering himself, the poor dead lady who was in the forces, the lady above with the flag. Fuvking hell.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

What rest? When you try to analyze a political move, you look at what is there to be achieved and who will benefit, this can lead you to who is behind it.

It seems a more logical explanation to me that the point of the rally was to put pressure on those Republicans that were resisting Trumps wishes, show them who commands the grassroots, who can bring people to the streets. Create as much chaos over the lost election as possible, in order to further energize the electorate. That they eventually and actually stormed the parliament was an own goal. What they wanted was an image of the people gathered outside in protest of the injustice being committed inside, not the image of Mr. Shaman taking a new picture for his FB  profile in the Speakers seat. 

You seem to have a couple different sets of they.

 

Who is they? Trump?

 

There is no question that a big faction of "they" - that is the folks went for the very reason of storming the Capitol. 

Cuz well, they said so.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Imagine carrying a flag saying dont tread on me and then being trampled to death. Its brilliant. Im getting my "dont fuck my brains out kelly brook" flag made as we speak, let's see if the universe doubles down on fun.

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You seem to have a couple different sets of they.

 

Who is they? Trump?

 

There is no question that a big faction of "they" - that is the folks went for the very reason of storming the Capitol. 

Cuz well, they said so.

First they is the protestors, second is the rally organizers, Trump et al.

 

I see that people are now talking about storming the parliament as something everybody knew about and expected since it was announced on social media, but judging by the media coverage on the day, that does not seem to be the case.

First images of protestors breaking barriers came via Twitter, not through big networks who at first paid little attention to that, more to what was going on inside, the procedure. Only when it became obvious protestors were actually trying to braak in, did the media turn their attention to that.

I watched some of Trump's speech with a delay on the Internet and then unsuccessfully tried for half an hour to get a picture of the size of the crowd. Then first images of clashes with the protestors started to appear and the media continued to treat it as a side show. I actually had an argument with a friend who follows US politics much more closely over this, because I thought they were paying attention to the wrong stage. This is why I think it was a matter of wrong assessment, how serious was Internet talk of breaking in, how many people may actually follow through, rather than a plan which included collusion with the CPD. 

[Bruce Spanner]

6 minutes ago, SasaS said:

First they is the protestors, second is the rally organizers, Trump et al.

 

I see that people are now talking about storming the parliament as something everybody knew about and expected since it was announced on social media, but judging by the media coverage on the day, that does not seem to be the case.

First images of protestors breaking barriers came via Twitter, not through big networks who at first paid little attention to that, more to what was going on inside, the procedure. Only when it became obvious protestors were actually trying to braak in, did the media turn their attention to that.

I watched some of Trump's speech with a delay on the Internet and then unsuccessfully tried for half an hour to get a picture of the size of the crowd. Then first images of clashes with the protestors started to appear and the media continued to treat it as a side show. I actually had an argument with a friend who follows US politics much more closely over this, because I thought they were paying attention to the wrong stage. This is why I think it was a matter of wrong assessment, how serious was Internet talk of breaking in, how many people may actually follow through, rather than a plan which included collusion with the CPD. 

 

They are not protestors, they have nothing to protest.

 

This can not be normalised.

[TheHowieLama]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

First they is the protestors, second is the rally organizers, Trump et al.

 

I see that people are now talking about storming the parliament as something everybody knew about and expected since it was announced on social media, but judging by the media coverage on the day, that does not seem to be the case.

First images of protestors breaking barriers came via Twitter, not through big networks who at first paid little attention to that, more to what was going on inside, the procedure. Only when it became obvious protestors were actually trying to braak in, did the media turn their attention to that.

I watched some of Trump's speech with a delay on the Internet and then unsuccessfully tried for half an hour to get a picture of the size of the crowd. Then first images of clashes with the protestors started to appear and the media continued to treat it as a side show. I actually had an argument with a friend who follows US politics much more closely over this, because I thought they were paying attention to the wrong stage. This is why I think it was a matter of wrong assessment, how serious was Internet talk of breaking in, how many people may actually follow through, rather than a plan which included collusion with the CPD. 

At this point I am unsure of the point you are trying to make. They, and the rally organizers are one and the same. Trump re-tweeted organizers announcement (whose goals were made very clear), then spoke at the rally, then cheered from the sidelines.

 

No idea what "media" is available to you but it was minute by minute here on network.

As with protests throughout the world over the last few years "social media" is in real time, on the ground and picked up immediately for broadcast.

[Bjornebye]

10 minutes ago, SasaS said:

First they is the protestors, second is the rally organizers, Trump et al.

 

I see that people are now talking about storming the parliament as something everybody knew about and expected since it was announced on social media, but judging by the media coverage on the day, that does not seem to be the case.

First images of protestors breaking barriers came via Twitter, not through big networks who at first paid little attention to that, more to what was going on inside, the procedure. Only when it became obvious protestors were actually trying to braak in, did the media turn their attention to that.

I watched some of Trump's speech with a delay on the Internet and then unsuccessfully tried for half an hour to get a picture of the size of the crowd. Then first images of clashes with the protestors started to appear and the media continued to treat it as a side show. I actually had an argument with a friend who follows US politics much more closely over this, because I thought they were paying attention to the wrong stage. This is why I think it was a matter of wrong assessment, how serious was Internet talk of breaking in, how many people may actually follow through, rather than a plan which included collusion with the CPD. 

Do you not think storming the building was pre-planned? 

[Scooby Dudek]

Ted "the cunt" Cruz in being a self serving cunt shocker;

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump/index.html

 

Ted Cruz would like you to just forget the last 4 years

 

(CNN)Ted Cruz said something truly remarkable -- like, truly -- in an interview with a Houston TV station on Thursday.

"The President's language and rhetoric often goes too far," the Texas senator said straight-facedly. "I think, yesterday in particular, the President's language and rhetoric crossed the line and it was reckless. I disagree with it, and I have disagreed with the President's language and rhetoric for the last four years."

Yup! You read that right. The Texas Republican senator, who not only has stood by Trump through thick and thin over the past few years but also was one of a handful of senators who voted to object to the Electoral College results following a riot at the US Capitol on Wednesday, actually uttered these words, "I disagree with it, and I have disagreed with the President's language and rhetoric for the last four years."

It would be sort of funny -- in a get-a-load-of-this-guy way -- if it wasn't so incredibly disingenuous.

Cruz has spent the last four years sucking up to Trump in any way he can think of.

Cruz volunteered to be the lead lawyer in the ridiculousness attempt by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to throw out votes in other states if the case was heard by the Supreme Court. (The court rejected the case out-of-hand.)

Cruz ran point on the Senate impeachment trial to ensure Trump was acquitted. As The Washington Post's Mike DeBonis wrote in January 2020 of the Texas Republican:

"Working inside the Senate and out, Cruz played a unique role in securing President Trump's swift acquittal at the third-ever presidential impeachment trial — simultaneously serving as legal strategist, jury consultant, messaging guru, broadcast surrogate and, unexpectedly, a breakout podcasting star."

"God bless Texas, and God bless President Donald Trump," Cruz said at a massive October 2018 rally attended by Trump, who was lending a hand to the Texas senator in his surprisingly competitive race against former Rep. Beto O'Rourke. (Cruz won.)

 

All of that would be enough -- actually more than enough -- to make clear just how much Cruz is seeking to re-write history with his assertion Thursday that he has "disagreed with the President's language and rhetoric for the last four years." But the depth of Cruz's flip-floppery can only be truly understood when you consider what happened between the two men during the 2016 primary campaign.

Over the course of that contest, Trump:

* Said that Cruz stole the Iowa caucuses

* Suggested that Cruz's father was somehow involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy

* Insinuated that Cruz's wife, Heidi, was unattractive

* Bestowed the nickname "Lyin' Ted" on Cruz

And, in turn, Cruz:

* Called Trump a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral, "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen" and "a serial philanderer."

* Suggested that Trump may have ties to the Mafia

* Said that "if I were in my car and getting ready to reverse and saw Donald in the backup camera, I'm not confident which pedal I'd push."

* Told Trump to "leave Heidi the hell alone."

* Pointedly refused to endorse Trump in a primetime speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention

So, yeah, there's a lot of water under the bridge there.

What explains Cruz's all-over-the-place response to Trump over these past five years? I know this will stun you, but the answer is politics. Cruz decided he needed to make nice with Trump because Cruz wanted (and wants) to run for national office again and he knew he would have no chance at winning if he stayed in the "mortal enemy" category of the sitting President. And so he did everything he could to fix his relationship with Trump.

But now, with the violent insurrection and occupation of the Capitol having tarred Trump's legacy forever, Cruz is trying to get away from the soon-to-be-former president as quickly as possible.

The problem? Well, the last five years, mostly. Cruz can't rewrite that history no matter how hard he tries.

[Red Shift]

 

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, Colonel Kurtz said:

Apparently one of the protestors who died was a middle aged fat bloke who tried to pull a painting off the wall, tasered himself in the balls with the taser he’d stuck in his front pocket and died of a heart attack caused by the pain and shock. Maybe apocryphal but seems plausible. What a ridiculous way to die. 

See above, it’s legit.

[Chocoholic]

On 07/01/2021 at 19:49, Mudface said:

Not a great loss to humanity.

 

 

'I am woke, man" She thought she was woke.

 

Was that the shadow of her own hand holding that phone? She's lucky she got there in the first place. The Police would've done her a favour had they seen her and pulled her over.

[magicrat]

3 minutes ago, Colonel Kurtz said:

Apparently one of the protestors who died was a middle aged fat bloke who tried to pull a painting off the wall, tasered himself in the balls with the taser he’d stuck in his front pocket and died of a heart attack caused by the pain and shock. Maybe apocryphal but seems plausible. What a ridiculous way to die. 

What a way to go . Sums up Trump and his fuckwit followers 

[Chocoholic]

6 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I agree with @Red PhoenixPhoenixPhoenPhPhoenix it is not good that a person was shot and killed. 

 

However I don't believe anyone is celebrating that fact that some right winger was, just not commenting on it. 

The context is massively important, so I believe most people think people getting shot is bad but in this situation it is not surprising, hence not many comments. Storming a government building, knowing the police carry guns and are happy to use them, you can't then be surprised that someone was shot. It is similar to the woman complaining about being Maced, you can't be outraged that she was Maced because of the context.

 

That is why there is more of an outcry, when somebody in their own bed is shot and killed by police then someone storming a government building is shot and killed by police, it is nothing to do with the politics but the action of the police purely in the context of the situation.

 

If I was running down the street and got shot there would be outrage, hopefully. If I was running towards parliament, past police and barriers and got shot, less so. My political beliefs would still be the same.

 

 

 

She wasn't maced. She was onioned. Self-onioned. She should be delighted she had the foresight to bring a towel to dry the tears (and attempt, but ultimately fail, to hide the onion) Who knew?

[Section_31]

Couldn't give two shits about someone getting shot trying to pull this bollocks, any more than I would someone wielding a Machete on London Bridge.

 

Imagine rocking up at the Pearly gates and St Peter asks you what you're in for?

 

"What was it then, Covid? Road smash?"

 

"Nah I was part of an armed militia that stormed Congress for the first time since the war of independence, while it was in session, and went on the rampage before being shot by one of the very few armed guards standing between my rabble and the entire government of the United States."

 

St Peter....

 

* scratches head awkwardly 

[Red Shift]

Who shot Ashli Babbitt? The shooter deliberately hid, until the moment it looked like the rioters had broken through. The appearance of the gun surprised the rioters, by the looks. I wonder, If Ashli Babbitt had of known sooner that a shooter was present - in other words, if the shooter had been on display with weapon for the whole time that they threatened the officers in front of the door, would she have been so quick to jump the furniture and be first into the lounge?

 

personally, I don’t think the shooter helped the situation at all by using what appears to be subterfuge.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/investigations/video-shows-moments-leading-up-to-fatal-capitol-shooting-on-jan-6/2021/01/08/b7bd8f45-1250-463e-b73f-d218b39e7ed0_video.html

[Chocoholic]

5 hours ago, mattyq said:

Without going all conspiracy nuts there is deffo something very odd about this.

Seems likely there was, at least, collusion if not conspiracy

From the same Twitter account that shared the 'Sedition party' video

 

The scene was set last month, as per Gregg Miller's tweet, when Trump put a load of his own supporters in, and stopped the National Guard being able to access the gear required, and then they were baulked from being called into action for as long as possible on the day. 

 

Added to the barriers being opened to allow the mob in, and the selfies, and who knows what other acts of treason we didn't see, no mistake, this was collusion, planned by Trump and facilitated by his appointed cronies.

 

This is also a very interesting and prescient thread.