Trump outrage of the day

[sui generis]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

I am hoping it is in the hands of the lifers who care!

The deep state is there to save the day.

Emmmm, I hope they are doing a lot of vetting of their officers before placing them on protection duty on 1/20...I have seen enough about their union and individual officers to suspect that some percentage of them would like to help he insurrectionists more than the Capitol Police did last Wednesday...

[OtherJen]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

Pence, Joint Chiefs, and Congress, pretty much.

[geekette]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

I hear he's traveling to Alamo, Tx to tout his whopping 30 miles of border wall completed.  That seems...important?

[Travis]

I'm finding the discussion in the news interesting.   The gop wants to revoke section 250 (I think that's the number) which provides a legal shield protecting service providers like Facebook from the consequences of content posted by their users.    I believe the gop thinks this will stop the social media companies from "censoring" conservative posters.

But I have to think that this will make it *more* likely for them to remove controversial posts  - which are the very posts the conservatives are complaining about being moderated.

It absolutely would lead to them getting moderated much harder. If Facebook is legally liable for stuff that people say on it, they will boot people off at the drop of a proverbial hat.

This was at the core of the debate a short while back when the CDA was updated to hold these companies accountable for sex trafficking on their sites. Zuckerberg and friends pledged to voluntarily have higher standards for the other subject areas (violence, lies, and such) in order to soften the crackdown on their liability shield.  Now they're doing exactly what Congress ordered them to do, but it just so happens that Trump's friends are on the receiving end of it. Conservatives love to rail against government interference and praise the free market until it infringes on their pet issues. 

[Travis]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

I hear he's traveling to Alamo, Tx to tout his whopping 30 miles of border wall completed.  That seems...important?

He's trying to write a few more checks for wall construction before he's out. Priorities you know.

[partgypsy]

All those places are big business. The only reason they shut Trump and others down is that overthrowing governments and lack of a stable society and economy are bad for business. Like someone else said if they are not selling anything you are the product. Trump (and his overthrow the gov followers) are bad for business.

[scottish]

All those places are big business. The only reason they shut Trump and others down is that overthrowing governments and lack of a stable society and economy are bad for business. Like someone else said if they are not selling anything you are the product. Trump (and his overthrow the gov followers) are bad for business.

Yeah it's one of those rare cases where society's interests might align with the interests of a few big companies.    It's still very interesting.   

[nereo]

Meanwhile, someone etched "Trump" into the skin of a manatee...

...really??  Some people are just sick.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/11/manatee-trump-etched-into-back-florida

[ixtap]

Merkel saying it was all "problematic." Yes, it is very problematic. But unlike you, we don't have anti-Nazi laws until it arises to the level violence and none of these companies actually cared about the violent threats. I saw people clamoring for bugaloo on FB and they weren't interested in dancing.

[jinga nation]

Yet another cabinet member bites the dust:

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf Resigns

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has submitted his resignation. ABC News released this internal message he sent to staff: 

“I am saddened to take this step, as it was my intention to serve the Department until the end of this Administration. Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary. These events and concerns increasingly serve to divert attention and resources away from the important work of the Department in this critical time of a transition of power.”

Thanks, dude. Way to back out right before armed militia are planning to attack all 50 state capitols. Have some cheese with that whine.

Is anybody running the government at all, or are we in complete free fall??

I hear he's traveling to Alamo, Tx to tout his whopping 30 miles of border wall completed.  That seems...important?

He's trying to write a few more checks for wall construction before he's out. Priorities you know.

The wall climbers at the Capitol proved that walls don't work.

[seattlecyclone]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

The only reason to be scared is because these companies control so much of this industry and of the market.  And that's an antitrust issue, not a speech issue.

This is basically my take on it.

I have zero problem whatsoever with the owners of a website setting rules about what can be published on that website. Don't like it? Make your own website. That's the beauty of the web. Anyone can put a site online.

I have very little problem with the owners of web servers setting rules about what can be hosted on those servers. There are tons of hosting providers out there. Maybe if you want to run something really big that none of the big guys will touch, you'll need to be creative about spinning up your own data centers at great expense. That barrier to entry is my only concern. In the end if you can plug a sufficient number of computers into networks operated by common carriers, you can put your site online.

When it comes to the app stores my opinion is a bit different. There are exactly two mobile phone operating systems that have any relevance. Both of them are designed to strongly encourage you to get all of your software from the store operated by the operating system manufacturer. Apple and Google therefore have a tremendous amount of control over what we are able to do with the devices we have purchased. As a device owner and occasional maker of software I would strongly prefer that they let people install whatever software they want without exercising any editorial control over the process.

The fact that we seem to have both companies in agreement that they won't allow communication apps without active moderation around certain topics does seem like a bridge too far for me. But my concern isn't that they're violating my freedom of speech, it's that they're abusing their monopoly (or duopoly) to make it harder for people to use their property how they wish. This concern would evaporate if both OSes made it easy for you to install software outside of the official app store. Android already supports this if you're willing to change the default security settings. Last I checked iOS didn't, but I'm not a regular user of that OS.

[former player]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

The only reason to be scared is because these companies control so much of this industry and of the market.  And that's an antitrust issue, not a speech issue.

This is basically my take on it.

I have zero problem whatsoever with the owners of a website setting rules about what can be published on that website. Don't like it? Make your own website. That's the beauty of the web. Anyone can put a site online.

I have very little problem with the owners of web servers setting rules about what can be hosted on those servers. There are tons of hosting providers out there. Maybe if you want to run something really big that none of the big guys will touch, you'll need to be creative about spinning up your own data centers at great expense. That barrier to entry is my only concern. In the end if you can plug a sufficient number of computers into networks operated by common carriers, you can put your site online.

When it comes to the app stores my opinion is a bit different. There are exactly two mobile phone operating systems that have any relevance. Both of them are designed to strongly encourage you to get all of your software from the store operated by the operating system manufacturer. Apple and Google therefore have a tremendous amount of control over what we are able to do with the devices we have purchased. As a device owner and occasional maker of software I would strongly prefer that they let people install whatever software they want without exercising any editorial control over the process.

The fact that we seem to have both companies in agreement that they won't allow communication apps without active moderation around certain topics does seem like a bridge too far for me. But my concern isn't that they're violating my freedom of speech, it's that they're abusing their monopoly (or duopoly) to make it harder for people to use their property how they wish. This concern would evaporate if both OSes made it easy for you to install software outside of the official app store. Android already supports this if you're willing to change the default security settings. Last I checked iOS didn't, but I'm not a regular user of that OS.

You can use your phone as a phone, to talk and text, without going to an app store.  You can use any other device using any program from anywhere to do everything else.  Choose your device wisely, I don't see the problem.

Otherwise, isn't it peaceful since Trump stopped tweeting, with Nancy and the Joint Chiefs in charge?  If Twitter had cut him off 4 years ago he would probably have won re-election.

[Just Joe]

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

You nailed it.

I guess with traditional social media out of reach - conservative supporters could go over and join one of the existing extremist forums elsewhere.

Maybe then they would start to recognize that things have gotten out of hand i.e. maybe those far right folks would scare the Trump supporters into moderating.

Saw a picture of the Capitol walls being climbed. Someone titled it "Honkey Kong". ;)

[Abe]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

The only reason to be scared is because these companies control so much of this industry and of the market.  And that's an antitrust issue, not a speech issue.

This is basically my take on it.

I have zero problem whatsoever with the owners of a website setting rules about what can be published on that website. Don't like it? Make your own website. That's the beauty of the web. Anyone can put a site online.

I have very little problem with the owners of web servers setting rules about what can be hosted on those servers. There are tons of hosting providers out there. Maybe if you want to run something really big that none of the big guys will touch, you'll need to be creative about spinning up your own data centers at great expense. That barrier to entry is my only concern. In the end if you can plug a sufficient number of computers into networks operated by common carriers, you can put your site online.

When it comes to the app stores my opinion is a bit different. There are exactly two mobile phone operating systems that have any relevance. Both of them are designed to strongly encourage you to get all of your software from the store operated by the operating system manufacturer. Apple and Google therefore have a tremendous amount of control over what we are able to do with the devices we have purchased. As a device owner and occasional maker of software I would strongly prefer that they let people install whatever software they want without exercising any editorial control over the process.

The fact that we seem to have both companies in agreement that they won't allow communication apps without active moderation around certain topics does seem like a bridge too far for me. But my concern isn't that they're violating my freedom of speech, it's that they're abusing their monopoly (or duopoly) to make it harder for people to use their property how they wish. This concern would evaporate if both OSes made it easy for you to install software outside of the official app store. Android already supports this if you're willing to change the default security settings. Last I checked iOS didn't, but I'm not a regular user of that OS.

You can use your phone as a phone, to talk and text, without going to an app store.  You can use any other device using any program from anywhere to do everything else.  Choose your device wisely, I don't see the problem.

Otherwise, isn't it peaceful since Trump stopped tweeting, with Nancy and the Joint Chiefs in charge?  If Twitter had cut him off 4 years ago he would probably have won re-election.

I agree. Can't fascists just make their own website to plot a a violent coup? It's like $10/year for a domain name these days. The companies made it very clear what is acceptable in their terms of use, so if a company they contract with violates the contract and gets booted off, that's not an attempt to stymie competition, that's business. Being successful doesn't mean having to be steamrolled by any random company's demands for how they will use your services for illegal purposes. There's no evidence of collusion between the two companies to stymie competition, and I don't think either Apple or Google have their own equivalent that's being promoted over Parler, which is what I think is needed for an anti-trust suit.

[Travis]

The social media giants say they're trying to police their sites in good faith with Congress' concerns over violence, hate crimes, and sex trafficking. Section 230 of the CDA gives them legal immunity from content on their sites, but they have no desire to be seen as that place where that mass murder was planned. It seems like a rewrite that spells out moderation and reporting requirements would be useful. Trump just wants to delete the entire clause so he can sue them, and like his desire to delete the ACA, has offered nothing to replace it.  When SOSTA became law, whole sections of the social media space on the internet disappeared overnight either because they were perpetrators, or they didn't want to risk being accused of it even on appearances.  It's no wonder that Google and Facebook oppose removing Section 230. If I planned a crime out in the open on Facebook and then carried it out, the victims could sue Facebook. If Facebook deleted my account for doing so, I could sue them for some kind of First Amendment violation.

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change

[LennStar]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

The only reason to be scared is because these companies control so much of this industry and of the market.  And that's an antitrust issue, not a speech issue.  We should be using the levers of antitrust to prevent companies from having undue control, and people like Elizabeth Warren have been calling for this for a long time.  The same conservatives and RWNJ who are today upset about the companies' actions against someone they like are the ones that don't want to use the antitrust laws on our books to cut the head off the monster rather than just the one limb that's attacking them.

Yes, exactly.
There have been proposals in the EU about a law making it mandatory for social media services to make data available to competitors, so that you can switch to another network with the click of a button and still be in the old network of "friends". Like the internet works, just with social media.
Guess what - the big social media platforms HATE that! Because their main user retention method is to make it a huge PITA to go anywhere else.
Just a normal Monopoly/Oligopoly situation.

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

You nailed it.

No, he didn't. In my town is one baker per 1000 people (if you also count the bread section of the supermarket).
Guess how many social media companies there are. Or road providers.

A baker should not be able to not sell a product based on the skin color of his customers, however it would be a lot less damaging to the customer. The customer can just go to a different baker. But for infrastructure? Are there there different road networks? Another electricity grid?

Losing social media might not be as severe as losing access to street or water, but it is still a normal part of life today. As in personal AND political.

[OzzieandHarriet]

This article about how Trump did nothing to stop the riot. The only excuses his toadies can come up with is that he was enjoying watching it on TV - and that’s a flattering interpretation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mob-failure/2021/01/11/36a46e2e-542e-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

And Heather Cox Richardson’s daily update here adds a bit more:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-11-2021

[OtherJen]

The conservative view, and it's the one I agree with is this:

Twitter, Amazon, etc. are all private companies. They are not government entities. They are entitled to restrict usage of their services to anyone for any reason that is not a protected reason under the law.

In principle I agree as I am a free market kind of guy, but in practice I'm still scared.

The only reason to be scared is because these companies control so much of this industry and of the market.  And that's an antitrust issue, not a speech issue.  We should be using the levers of antitrust to prevent companies from having undue control, and people like Elizabeth Warren have been calling for this for a long time.  The same conservatives and RWNJ who are today upset about the companies' actions against someone they like are the ones that don't want to use the antitrust laws on our books to cut the head off the monster rather than just the one limb that's attacking them.

Yes, exactly.
There have been proposals in the EU about a law making it mandatory for social media services to make data available to competitors, so that you can switch to another network with the click of a button and still be in the old network of "friends". Like the internet works, just with social media.
Guess what - the big social media platforms HATE that! Because their main user retention method is to make it a huge PITA to go anywhere else.
Just a normal Monopoly/Oligopoly situation.

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

You nailed it.

No, he didn't. In my town is one baker per 1000 people (if you also count the bread section of the supermarket).
Guess how many social media companies there are. Or road providers.

A baker should not be able to not sell a product based on the skin color of his customers, however it would be a lot less damaging to the customer. The customer can just go to a different baker. But for infrastructure? Are there there different road networks? Another electricity grid?

Losing social media might not be as severe as losing access to street or water, but it is still a normal part of life today. As in personal AND political.

We’re talking about the US context here. Conservatives argued successfully that anyone should be able to deny service based on issues of perceived morality (e.g., an evangelical Christian baker could not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple). Those court rulings are now coming back to bite them in the ass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

[talltexan]

This article about how Trump did nothing to stop the riot. The only excuses his toadies can come up with is that he was enjoying watching it on TV - and that’s a flattering interpretation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mob-failure/2021/01/11/36a46e2e-542e-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

And Heather Cox Richardson’s daily update here adds a bit more:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-11-2021

Phone calls to multiple Senators--including Tommy Tuberville--were placed during the sacking. When Tuberville did get on the phone with Giuliani, he wasn't being asked any questions about his own well-being or the security situation. He was being asked to delay the election certification.

[American GenX]

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

You nailed it.

Nailed it x2.

guess with traditional social media out of reach - conservative supporters could go over and join one of the existing extremist forums elsewhere.

They could, but most conservatives are far from being extremists.   The crowd that rushed the capital is just a small slice of those who supported Trump in the 2020 election.  While I didn't support Trump, I know quite a few people who did, and not one of them is extreme by any stretch.

[talltexan]

Indeed I have no doubt that many of the conservatives who are starting up parler accounts are not extreme or violent.

But it doesn't appear that parler had the resources to keep their data safe: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/01/11/parler-hack-platform-archived-hackers-capitol-riots/6629772002/

[nereo]

Does anyone here honestly think Trump will be largely silent now that his twitter account and FB have been taken away?
Does anyone here honestly think Trump's next moves will be consolatory and meek?

He's in semi-reclusion right now, brooding and angry.  His smartphone isn't as loud a megaphone anymore, but he'll find a way. He's still got Air Force One (for now) and loves his rallies.  He can still call up half a dozen right-wing news programs and talk rage for an hour straight about everything and nothing. He still can make proclamations and orders that have legal weight and serious ramifications.

This is why I support impeachment and removal.  This is why I continue to have a moment of apprehension each morning when I go to check the news headlines, and I don't see that stopping until after the inauguration. Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

[frugalnacho]

A short clip from the simpsons that sums up how the GOP treats trump

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

"This is exactly what Bart's teacher was talking about.  Our son did something wrong and you look the other way!  But Marge! Look at that hang dog expression, he's learned his lesson.  Let's get him a present."

[ixtap]

Twitter is a company, much like a bakery, and Trump is a customer, much like a gay couple.

You nailed it.

Nailed it x2.

guess with traditional social media out of reach - conservative supporters could go over and join one of the existing extremist forums elsewhere.

They could, but most conservatives are far from being extremists.   The crowd that rushed the capital is just a small slice of those who supported Trump in the 2020 election.  While I didn't support Trump, I know quite a few people who did, and not one of them is extreme by any stretch.

Oh I am jealous. Most of the Trump supporters I know have been spewing a constant stream of hate since Obama and Hillary were in the primaries, including pedaling every single one of the conspiracy theories and cutting off any news source that doesn't push those same theories over actual facts.

[Alfred J Quack]

Indeed I have no doubt that many of the conservatives who are starting up parler accounts are not extreme or violent.

But it doesn't appear that parler had the resources to keep their data safe: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/01/11/parler-hack-platform-archived-hackers-capitol-riots/6629772002/

An interview with the "hacker" in question stated that they only archived 70TB of publicly available data. So not really a hack, just a web scrape. But if the idiots there posted everything damning on the public side just as useful for investigation bureaus.

https://gizmodo.com/every-deleted-parler-post-many-with-users-location-dat-1846032466

Clarification that it was only publicly available data: https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1348666166978424832

[OtherJen]

It strikes me that if we ousted all the Trumpers, we'd stop having so many superspreader events in the White House and Capitol.

2nd Congresswoman Contracts COVID-19, Blames Capitol Attack Lockdown

Rep. Pramila Jayapal has tested positive for COVID-19, a result that she blames on her Republican colleagues' refusal to wear face masks during the hours-long lockdown last Wednesday as pro-Trump extremists attacked the U.S. Capitol.

"Only hours after Trump incited a deadly assault on our Capitol, many Republicans still refused to take the bare minimum COVID-19 precaution and simply wear a damn mask in a crowded room during a pandemic—creating a superspreader event ON TOP of a domestic terrorist attack," Jayapal said on Twitter.

Crowded conditions during the prolonged security lockdown recently prompted Dr. Brian Monahan, the attending physician to Congress, to urge members and staff to get coronavirus tests, citing a high chance of transmission.

Monahan also said that at least one lawmaker who was in a holding area was already positive before the chaotic events forced hundreds of people to gather together.

Honestly, if I were her I would file charges against the COVID-positive lawmaker for reckless endangerment.

[Travis]

This article about how Trump did nothing to stop the riot. The only excuses his toadies can come up with is that he was enjoying watching it on TV - and that’s a flattering interpretation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mob-failure/2021/01/11/36a46e2e-542e-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

And Heather Cox Richardson’s daily update here adds a bit more:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-11-2021

Phone calls to multiple Senators--including Tommy Tuberville--were placed during the sacking. When Tuberville did get on the phone with Giuliani, he wasn't being asked any questions about his own well-being or the security situation. He was being asked to delay the election certification.

Have you heard the audio of the voicemail he left Tuberville? It's fucking creepy in its single-mindedness and tone. "Just delay it. Just object to every state."

[jrhampt]

It strikes me that if we ousted all the Trumpers, we'd stop having so many superspreader events in the White House and Capitol.

2nd Congresswoman Contracts COVID-19, Blames Capitol Attack Lockdown

Rep. Pramila Jayapal has tested positive for COVID-19, a result that she blames on her Republican colleagues' refusal to wear face masks during the hours-long lockdown last Wednesday as pro-Trump extremists attacked the U.S. Capitol.

"Only hours after Trump incited a deadly assault on our Capitol, many Republicans still refused to take the bare minimum COVID-19 precaution and simply wear a damn mask in a crowded room during a pandemic—creating a superspreader event ON TOP of a domestic terrorist attack," Jayapal said on Twitter.

Crowded conditions during the prolonged security lockdown recently prompted Dr. Brian Monahan, the attending physician to Congress, to urge members and staff to get coronavirus tests, citing a high chance of transmission.

Monahan also said that at least one lawmaker who was in a holding area was already positive before the chaotic events forced hundreds of people to gather together.

Honestly, if I were her I would file charges against the COVID-positive lawmaker for reckless endangerment.

And there's already a third - Brad Schneider.  How much of a selfish asshole do you have to be not to put on a damn mask?

[Just Joe]

Oh I am jealous. Most of the Trump supporters I know have been spewing a constant stream of hate since Obama and Hillary were in the primaries, including pedaling every single one of the conspiracy theories and cutting off any news source that doesn't push those same theories over actual facts.

Yeah, Obama's election really was the end of a naive era for DW and I. We suddenly had family and friends saying some really ugly things that we'd never heard them say before. Mostly about liberals in general. Occasionally we'd hear something almost racist but more often sexist. Definitely heard that Obama and Hillary were the worst people ever for "reasons" that were often incoherent or vague.

Frankly its been a tough time listening to family we once looked up to and respected say just plain idiotic things. We had to cut a few friends loose over the years b/c they went off the rails and there was little chance of saving them from this alternative universe they had fallen into. 

I'd love to see America whole again. We'll never live up to the USA hype we've been fed over the years but at least people would be civil and perhaps base their beliefs on more facts and less fiction. 

I've witnessed two conversations already this work week where people were talking with their brain turned off. One tried to reinforce his position with UFO evidence. Just look it up he said... The other was sharing how the capitol insurrection was actually ANTIFA. Really? That one is already a tired story.

[Just Joe]

Have you heard the audio of the voicemail he left Tuberville? It's fucking creepy in its single-mindedness and tone. "Just delay it. Just object to every state."

Which leads me to ask - what good does a delay do? Is this just drama for the 24 hr news cycle or is there a judge somewhere trying to make up his mind about whether to favor Trump during all this?

I hope this wrecks a bunch of Republican careers and puts a few at the top into jail. Trump, Guilliani, etc.

[Glenstache]

Have you heard the audio of the voicemail he left Tuberville? It's fucking creepy in its single-mindedness and tone. "Just delay it. Just object to every state."

Which leads me to ask - what good does a delay do? Is this just drama for the 24 hr news cycle or is there a judge somewhere trying to make up his mind about whether to favor Trump during all this?

I hope this wrecks a bunch of Republican careers and puts a few at the top into jail. Trump, Guilliani, etc.

There are only two general options that I see:
1) Desperate grabbing at straws. Hoping that a miracle will present itself if given just a bit more time and the certification is delayed.
2) An actual conspiracy that depended on subverting the certification.

If 2, that needs to be rooted out and made an example of. America has a troubling history of support for "strong" leaders who support mostly the "order" part and not so much the "law" part. A lot of that has an overlap with established social structures and needing to be able to blame another group for problems. There is a lot of structural racism in that. I've been listening to the Slow Burn deep dives into the Nixon impeachment and also the season on David Duke. The patterns that emerge about public opinion and like for someone who will say what the public cannot say in polite company is apparent. The broad dismissal of the Capitol riots and specifically the whataboutism of saying "oh, but this was okay form BLM?" is entirely consistent with this thread in American society. The Capitol riots are just a symptom of a much more difficult to address undercurrent that poses some real threats to our society.

[nereo]

As more information comes to light, the attack on the Capitol looks worse and worse

• An FBI report warned this might happen
• Three congressmen have tested positive after sheltering in place
• Video continues to surface showing just how violent these people were (e.g. chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and dragging an officer down a flight of stairs)
• Over a dozen officers are on temporary suspension pending review
• Now ex-Capitol Police chief called for the national guard six times that day

Trump's always responded to an unfavorable news cycle by doing something outlandish to grab hold of the media. 

[the_fixer]

Have you heard the audio of the voicemail he left Tuberville? It's fucking creepy in its single-mindedness and tone. "Just delay it. Just object to every state."

Which leads me to ask - what good does a delay do? Is this just drama for the 24 hr news cycle or is there a judge somewhere trying to make up his mind about whether to favor Trump during all this?

I hope this wrecks a bunch of Republican careers and puts a few at the top into jail. Trump, Guilliani, etc.

There are only two general options that I see:
1) Desperate grabbing at straws. Hoping that a miracle will present itself if given just a bit more time and the certification is delayed.
2) An actual conspiracy that depended on subverting the certification.

If 2, that needs to be rooted out and made an example of. America has a troubling history of support for "strong" leaders who support mostly the "order" part and not so much the "law" part. A lot of that has an overlap with established social structures and needing to be able to blame another group for problems. There is a lot of structural racism in that. I've been listening to the Slow Burn deep dives into the Nixon impeachment and also the season on David Duke. The patterns that emerge about public opinion and like for someone who will say what the public cannot say in polite company is apparent. The broad dismissal of the Capitol riots and specifically the whataboutism of saying "oh, but this was okay form BLM?" is entirely consistent with this thread in American society. The Capitol riots are just a symptom of a much more difficult to address undercurrent that poses some real threats to our society.

Here is my feeling / view and why I have been concerned about it for a while.

The tactics are very similar to those used to hack / attack / test security of a company or infrastructure.

Brute force attack - Phishing - Social engineering ETC

They have covered all of the bases and have done an amazing job of Injecting / exposing flaws in the various systems thus creating a framework/ blueprint for others to follow / build upon.

Maybe that is just my minds way of sorting out what I am seeing by comparing it to situations I am familiar with but it sure seems like they hacked the government and almost brought the system down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Galt incarnate!]

 Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

I am  not  concerned about Trump's wrongful exercise of his commander-in-chief power because military leadership is hypercognizant of his unbalance such that they will refuse to execute any order he issues if it has the merest semblance of an unlawful order.


In November 2020, during the dedication of a military museum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, reaffirmed the military's commitment to the Constitution. 


"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual...We take an oath to the Constitution."

Who was General  Milley thinking of when he said this?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that he was thinking of President Trump.
 
"We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, each of us will protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price."  General Milley

[nereo]

 Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

I am  not  concerned about Trump's wrongful exercise of his commander-in-chief power because military leadership is hypercognizant of his unbalance such that they will refuse to execute any order he issues if it has the merest semblance of an unlawful order.


In November 2020, during the dedication of a military museum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, reaffirmed the military's commitment to the Constitution. 


"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual."

Who was General  Milley thinking of when he said this?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that he was thinking of President Trump
 
"We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, each of us will protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price."  General Milley

You have a faith I do not share.  The military, and in particular the brass, are committed to obeying their commanding officer. As long as that is Trump, they will find it difficult not to carry out his orders.  As you said, they take an oath to teh constititon, and that binds them to DJT as their commander in chief.

[GuitarStv]

 Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

I am  not  concerned about Trump's wrongful exercise of his commander-in-chief power because military leadership is hypercognizant of his unbalance such that they will refuse to execute any order he issues if it has the merest semblance of an unlawful order.

This is the same military leadership that has had no problems continuing to operate an illegal torture facility in Guantanamo Bay for almost 20 years . . . where civilians (including children) from around the world are held without trial or evidence of crime.  The one where murder, rape, waterboarding, starvation, force feeding, sleep deprivation, etc. have been routinely used.

There is no historical precedent of the US military refusing unlawful orders.  Quite the opposite.

[frugalnacho]

I'd have a lot more faith about people at all levels doing the right thing and not following trump's orders if I hadn't watched him literally incite insurrection and attempt a coup less than a week ago. 

[bacchi]

Cracks are showing. The alt-right is arguing among themselves, looking for a new direction.

I can think of a couple of lawyers at this point who are responsible for almost all the bullshit hopium that has permeated this site for the last two months and who, despite taking our donations, delivered not a single thing toward Trump's victory.

People lost focus because they trusted Lin Wood and Sydney Powell more than they trusted reality. And now, here we are, with WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE wondering how we could have possibly lost when we had Delta Force fighting the CIA for a magical server in Germany.

[talltexan]

I'm hearing from many long-time Republicans who are done with Trump. Cannot believe he deteriorated so badly in the last sixty days. I think they genuinely want to run out the clock to Jan. 20, which would feel so...disappointing to a whole lot of us.

[ixtap]

I'm hearing from many long-time Republicans who are done with Trump. Cannot believe he deteriorated so badly in the last sixty days. I think they genuinely want to run out the clock to Jan. 20, which would feel so...disappointing to a whole lot of us.

Trump has not done anything different in the last 60 days than he did in the previous 4 years, and little different than what he was doing in the 8 years before that.

[nereo]

Maybe too many in the GOP were holding out hope that he would change and finally become “presidential”. Now that he is a lame duck the hope is gone (for them)

Of course to anyone paying attention it was confirmed that trump couldn’t be the prototypical executive in the first few months of his presidency (if not sooner).

[dividendman]

I'm hearing from many long-time Republicans who are done with Trump. Cannot believe he deteriorated so badly in the last sixty days. I think they genuinely want to run out the clock to Jan. 20, which would feel so...disappointing to a whole lot of us.

It's relative easy to get behind a "winner". Now he's a loser. Not only for himself but for senate republicans. Let's see if the trumpists maintain sway in the primaries.

[nereo]

I'm hearing from many long-time Republicans who are done with Trump. Cannot believe he deteriorated so badly in the last sixty days. I think they genuinely want to run out the clock to Jan. 20, which would feel so...disappointing to a whole lot of us.

It's relative easy to get behind a "winner". Now he's a loser. Not only for himself but for senate republicans. Let's see if the trumpists maintain sway in the primaries.

Trump has made a career getting people to pay a premium over similar gigs and services by attaching his name (his “brand”) to it. It will be interesting to see if the market continues to allow him to charge such a premium after he goes down as the first president since Wilson to lose the house and senate and White House in four years. Right now he looks more like the loser and destroyer of Republican power. Time will tell if it gets better or worse for him.

[frugalnacho]

Maybe too many in the GOP were holding out hope that he would change and finally become “presidential”. Now that he is a lame duck the hope is gone (for them)

Of course to anyone paying attention it was confirmed that trump couldn’t be the prototypical executive in the first few months of his presidency (if not sooner).

If he incites just three or four more violent insurrections I am going to seriously reconsider supporting him. 

[Just Joe]

Here is my feeling / view and why I have been concerned about it for a while.

The tactics are very similar to those used to hack / attack / test security of a company or infrastructure.

Brute force attack - Phishing - Social engineering ETC

They have covered all of the bases and have done an amazing job of Injecting / exposing flaws in the various systems thus creating a framework/ blueprint for others to follow / build upon.

Maybe that is just my minds way of sorting out what I am seeing by comparing it to situations I am familiar with but it sure seems like they hacked the government and almost brought the system down.

Who benefits from such a breach? Russians? Chinese? Trump (had he won his second election)?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I've long felt Trump and the GOP were testing to see what they could get away with but I saw as it a chance to consolidate the power of his supporters through lies and rumors. To continue to control as much of the gov't as they could using nay method. Also, their business allies would be free to do whatever they wanted - unsafe workplaces, pollute, steal ideas or spy on their competitors, etc. Choose who could line up at the gov't corporate handout trough. Put minorities back into second or third place again.

[Psychstache]

Maybe too many in the GOP were holding out hope that he would change and finally become “presidential”. Now that he is a lame duck the hope is gone (for them)

Of course to anyone paying attention it was confirmed that trump couldn’t be the prototypical executive in the first few months of his presidency (if not sooner).

If he incites just three or four more violent insurrections I am going to seriously reconsider supporting him.

[talltexan]

I actually think it's just Republicans trying to see what* they can do to maintain power.

*Aside from organizing and persuading with the goal to build majority coalitions of voters, they don't seem to want to go that route for some reason

[dividendman]

I think McConnell is many things, but he's definitely a shrewd political mind, and even he's looking at booting Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trump-capitol-riot/index.html

EDIT: even fox says so: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-believes-trump-committed-impeachable-offenses-supports-democrats-impeachment-efforts-report

[Dee18]

McConnell and other Republicans want Trump unable to run for president in 4 years.  And they want the Republican Party to be able to successfully raise funds now. Impeaching Trump would help with both.

[the_fixer]

Here is my feeling / view and why I have been concerned about it for a while.

The tactics are very similar to those used to hack / attack / test security of a company or infrastructure.

Brute force attack - Phishing - Social engineering ETC

They have covered all of the bases and have done an amazing job of Injecting / exposing flaws in the various systems thus creating a framework/ blueprint for others to follow / build upon.

Maybe that is just my minds way of sorting out what I am seeing by comparing it to situations I am familiar with but it sure seems like they hacked the government and almost brought the system down.

Who benefits from such a breach? Russians? Chinese? Trump (had he won his second election)?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I've long felt Trump and the GOP were testing to see what they could get away with but I saw as it a chance to consolidate the power of his supporters through lies and rumors. To continue to control as much of the gov't as they could using nay method. Also, their business allies would be free to do whatever they wanted - unsafe workplaces, pollute, steal ideas or spy on their competitors, etc. Choose who could line up at the gov't corporate handout trough. Put minorities back into second or third place again.

Trump would have been the immediate/ direct beneficiary as well as those in his circle. I truly think they were trying to find a way to keep him in his seat.

What happened will certainly benefit some countries and degrade the status of the US across the world but I do not think that was what they were trying to accomplish.

Who will it benefit in the future? Who knows who will find a way to exploit the vulnerabilities that this has exposed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk