DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

I don't really pay any attention to what they say so have quickly looked it up.

In fairness, maybe you should pay more attention to both sides because if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, then it is only fair to apply that on an equal basis and if you're not paying attention to one side that's not really possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but AOC said "we need rapid and real de escalation and we need it now. We cannot descend into the chaos of violence." I'm fine with that statement.

Harris said that it was "critically important" for the PROTESTS to continue. I'm not priti Patel so I do believe protests can happen.

I can't find waters saying anything about riots, the only thing that comes up is when she said to tell Congressmen that they aren't welcome in 2018 after the child detainment camps were revealed.

Kamala Harris reflecting on BLM protests/riots:

"They're not going to stop, they're not going to stop and everyone beware. This is a movement. They're not going to stop before election day in November and they're not going to stop after and everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not."

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=0UyYUVWbQhiJzagCCtI6Jw

Maxine Waters advocating physical harassment of political adversaries:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

Ocasio Cortez on why political activism is all about making people uncomfortable:

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/13341846 ... 80?lang=en



By your standards, not mine, any and each of these could be seen as a veiled threat and a call to incitement.

Certainly, each is an example of legitimising and thus normalising political violence. The problem is you (not you specifically talking in general) cannot support political violence on one side and then denounce it on the other without showing yourself up to be a partisan hypocrite with a complete lack of conviction in your beliefs.

To put put the context back in your own (slightly edited) words:

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate ANTIFA or BLM 'protestors' hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections off the top of my head) standing outside the building where all the "fascists" were. Can you see why that might have riled them to burn down the homes of hardworking and completely innocent members of the local community whose only crime was to have achieved something and been in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Personally, I'll hold the same moral line for the Demns as I do for Trump and and would say that of course none of these is incitement, it is politicians doing what politicians do in use hyperbolic and bombastic rhetoric. There is a degree of common sense that should be applied and we all have our own agency and sense of responsibility to not burn, loot, murder and riot.

All I ask is others be equally consistent in their logic as well

Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.

strangely enough i missed your posts on the sports minister of France , the home secretary of Benin and Canadas health minister who along with Trump your not really bothered about...

I don't really pay any attention to what they say so have quickly looked it up.

In fairness, maybe you should pay more attention to both sides because if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, then it is only fair to apply that on an equal basis and if you're not paying attention to one side that's not really possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but AOC said "we need rapid and real de escalation and we need it now. We cannot descend into the chaos of violence." I'm fine with that statement.

Harris said that it was "critically important" for the PROTESTS to continue. I'm not priti Patel so I do believe protests can happen.

I can't find waters saying anything about riots, the only thing that comes up is when she said to tell Congressmen that they aren't welcome in 2018 after the child detainment camps were revealed.

Kamala Harris reflecting on BLM protests/riots:

"They're not going to stop, they're not going to stop and everyone beware. This is a movement. They're not going to stop before election day in November and they're not going to stop after and everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not."

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=0UyYUVWbQhiJzagCCtI6Jw

Maxine Waters advocating physical harassment of political adversaries:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

Ocasio Cortez on why political activism is all about making people uncomfortable:

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/13341846 ... 80?lang=en



By your standards, not mine, any and each of these could be seen as a veiled threat and a call to incitement.

Certainly, each is an example of legitimising and thus normalising political violence. The problem is you (not you specifically talking in general) cannot support political violence on one side and then denounce it on the other without showing yourself up to be a partisan hypocrite with a complete lack of conviction in your beliefs.

To put put the context back in your own (slightly edited) words:

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate ANTIFA or BLM 'protestors' hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections off the top of my head) standing outside the building where all the "fascists" were. Can you see why that might have riled them to burn down the homes of hardworking and completely innocent members of the local community whose only crime was to have achieved something and been in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Personally, I'll hold the same moral line for the Demns as I do for Trump and and would say that of course none of these is incitement, it is politicians doing what politicians do in use hyperbolic and bombastic rhetoric. There is a degree of common sense that should be applied and we all have our own agency and sense of responsibility to not burn, loot, murder and riot.

All I ask is others be equally consistent in their logic as well

Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.

Nobody on here thinks Trump is a God and you forgot to mention Trump told his followers to be peaceful.

Yes he did ask them to be peaceful...sometime after the event had begun and only when pushed to do so by his team. Whilst at the same time praising people for being patriots? Super clear.

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Jeez Josh, please get a grip of reality, just for once.

Essentially your first paragraph inference is the same as saying if I told somebody to incite violence a year ago, and they did it today I am culpable! seriously??? And on that point you are assuming it was Trump supporters who actually walked into that building........the building that should be so protected, but for some strange reason wasn't on that particular day.

Then you go on to compare the President of the United States to a couple of terrorist groups!!! You scraped the barrel on your first paragraph, on your second you are seriously digging so low you might get to Oz.

If you repeat a message (in Trumps case over 4/5 years) it breeds familiarity with that message. If that message is ‘easy to understand’ and ‘fits the bias of an individual or group’ it becomes the ‘truth’ in the eye of the individual or group. It’s called the illusion of truth - a pretty well tested and proven process. When that message gets said by another person or by a higher profile person it gains more and more momentum.

Trump didn’t say something once and only a year ago - he has repeated it time and time again about rigged systems, elections steals etc with no actual evidence of proof (according to the courts). His team also delivered the same message time and time again. Pre the 2016 election according the Trump the system was ‘rigged’...he won, it was no longer rigged. Fast forward to 2020 again and the system is rigged.

On Jan 6th when Trump is using messages like ‘assault on our democracy’ or ‘you’ll have to fight much harder’ or ‘we will never take our country back with weakness’ and his paid lawyer uses the term ‘trial by combat’ what message would you say that is sending?

Are you saying it wasn’t Trump supporters in the building? Maybe they got in easy because it was Trump supporters that let them in or maybe when faced with a massive crowd they couldn’t have controlled they stepped aside.

You realise that exact argument can be completely flipped on its head.

When half a country is demonised for their political beliefs for half a decade,

when their businesses are burnt down and the politicians glorify the criminals who did it as a civil rights movement,

when one by one their voices are taken away as they all dissenting voices are shut down from the modern town square of social media,

when cancel culture reaches the point where they can no longer be open about there political beliefs in the workplace,

when their votes are seemingly worthless and rather than an investigation, the media tell them to shut up and just get over it,

when they are told they are the ignorant and hateful ones by people who scream in their faces all while the politicians and media smile their endorsements at their insane blue heard pet foot soldiers,

when the only man who ever seemed to fight on their behalf is let down by the legal system they hold so dear,

when there was open talk of lists being drawn up of Trump supporters, re-education programs and never forgiving their support for Trump...

Do you really think that just Trump is to blame for a pushing a group of people (including BLM activist John Sullivan who was stupid enough to document it) to enter the Capital building because they were broken, beaten down and desperate?

If you want to lean on rhetoric from the last five years then there are a lot more people than just one man who can take the blame and they belong on both sides of the tribal divide.

Of course this argument can be flipped on its head - many can.

But what we are talking about here is Trump and his actions, not those of anyone else which should be dealt with in there own right. However, I agree some of the points that you have raised aren’t acceptable - politics shouldn’t ever bring anything that suggests violence or ‘physical action’ into it.

As the the leader of his country, rightly or wrongly he will and should be held to the very highest standard. Any president will get more media coverage than any other politician and the words, language, narrative they use will carry more weight than any other politician.

Let’s be clear here - Trump was not convicted here due to politics. Nothing else. I can’t imagine how families of people who died that day would have felt hearing McConnell come out and say what he said after voting that Trump wasn’t guilty - if McConnell had voted guilty, it is very likely more republicans would have done so. The argument about it not being constitutional was a sham 1. Because the replicants actively delayed the trial until he was out of office and 2. Because the senate on the first day of the trial voted that it was constitutional...but then republicans decided to ignore that ruling.

If Biden had done all of the things Trump had pre, during and post the election and BLM were invading the capitol holding up the vote, holding up flags and taking the knee i suspect all republicans would have convicted him...president at the time or not.

But that is the point - regardless of anyone’s politics the spectacle that has been on show for the last months and years shouldn’t be tolerated from any side of the fence.

Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.

it was so obvious you were going to say that. You have the moral conviction of a turnip.

Also, if this thread proves anything it is that you really, really should learn to read the posts before replying because you've just done it again.

I didn't say you are on the extreme side of American politics. I said if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, which is what you are doing.

It is extreme to hold someone accountable for another person's actions based on their words which could have multiple interpretations. That's kinda why there are legal definitions for things like incitement and holding someone to a higher standard than the law would be a fairly extreme position.

I don't think you actually know what strong moral conviction is so thanks for the compliment that I don't have it.

If I'm on the extreme side of politics, what extreme policies do I believe in? (I look forward to hearing you explain how not killing immigrants and feeding hungry children is extreme)

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech

But Josh, there isn't a single line in there that qualifies as incitement and this is the point I am making.

You can read into it what you want, others can and will read it another way, but it is all 100% subjective

All the above quotes and every other quote I have seen used in such arguments fall outside of the very clearly defined legal parameters of the US legal definition of incitement (which I posted earlier.)

Impeachment is a legal procedure, it is a political one but ostensibly it is still operating within a legal framework. The article of impeachment was the incitement of insurrection.

You've suggested by simply questioning the validity of election results and challenging that through the US legal system that Trump was establishing a narrative that encouraged the insurrection. That just isn't correct.

Now, you've listed a bunch of quotes and not one of them would fall within the legal definition of incitement.

Perhaps Trump was genius and spoke incredibly deliberately to tread the line just carefully enough to whip up the crowd and still claim there is no incitement. Perhaps he is a bombastic buffoon and didn't realise what he was saying and just got lucky.

Either way, there is nothing, literally nothing that can firmly tie him to the charge of incitement of insurrection.

Given that it was an impossible charge to prove, and that the likelihood of convincing enough Republicans to cross the aisle to convict him without such evidence is non-existant, and that the Democrats would have known all of this themselves - the question remains what was the whole point in this political theatre?

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Sorry Josh selective memory. How about the rhetoric coming from the Dems especially the governors and mayors who encouraged the riots and destruction of cities last June ? They encouraged it told the police to stand down and refused the National guard.
Many more deaths than happened at the congress and those were due to heart attack etc and one lady shot by the police and it was proved that attack was started by Antifa dressed up with American flags and Trump signs. Trump did not encourage this attack which horrified the likes of you whilst you stay silent to the riots looting and murder of BLM.

Any quotes of them saying it?

If we're talking about being silent, I don't remember you condemning the attack when it happened. You also aren't helping stop the divide and conquer tactic you warn about frequently.

Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.

it was so obvious you were going to say that. You have the moral conviction of a turnip.

Also, if this thread proves anything it is that you really, really should learn to read the posts before replying because you've just done it again.

I didn't say you are on the extreme side of American politics. I said if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, which is what you are doing.

It is extreme to hold someone accountable for another person's actions based on their words which could have multiple interpretations. That's kinda why there are legal definitions for things like incitement and holding someone to a higher standard than the law would be a fairly extreme position.

I don't think you actually know what strong moral conviction is so thanks for the compliment that I don't have it.

If I'm on the extreme side of politics, what extreme policies do I believe in? (I look forward to hearing you explain how NOT KILLING IMMIGRANTS is extreme)

Fantastic Josh, you have became a parody of an extreme Leftwing crank. These are difficult times for us all and I have to say your Marxist lunacy makes me laugh and cheers me up. Thankyou.

But that is the point - regardless of anyone’s politics the spectacle that has been on show for the last months and years shouldn’t be tolerated from any side of the fence.

I'll happily agree with you on that

Learn to read the posts before replying because you've just done it again - Third time in one thread this is some kind of record!

If I'm on the extreme side of politics

OK read this slowly then read it again, then just once more to be double sure

I didn't say you are on the extreme side of American politics. I said if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, which is what you are doing.

what extreme policies do I believe in?

Dunno, don't think I mentioned policy did I? Probably because I didn't mention you being on the extreme side of politics.

It is extreme to hold someone accountable for another person's actions based on their words which could have multiple interpretations. That's kinda why there are legal definitions for things like incitement and holding someone to a higher standard than the law would be a fairly extreme position.

So nothing to do with where you sit on a political compass/spectrum or any commentary on your thoughts on any specific policy?

I think you may have lost the ability to read anything other than certain buzz words and these just trigger default responses that actually don't make any sense in the context of what you are replying to.

Are you a bot Josh, like seriously? This is literally the third time in a row in just one thread where you've completely missed the entire context of what was being said and responded to something that wasn't being said at all.

I've heard about bots on sites but never encountered one before and didn't think someone would go to the effort of hacking a City forum. Would explain an awful lot though I guess.

If you are human you might want to take a look at this prob. help you out...

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course ... on-101.htm

If you are a bot did you know there is no such thing as Silicon Heaven?

Learn to read the posts before replying because you've just done it again - Third time in one thread this is some kind of record!

If I'm on the extreme side of politics

OK read this slowly then read it again, then just once more to be double sure

I didn't say you are on the extreme side of American politics. I said if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, which is what you are doing.

what extreme policies do I believe in?

Dunno, don't think I mentioned policy did I? Probably because I didn't mention you being on the extreme side of politics.

It is extreme to hold someone accountable for another person's actions based on their words which could have multiple interpretations. That's kinda why there are legal definitions for things like incitement and holding someone to a higher standard than the law would be a fairly extreme position.

So nothing to do with where you sit on a political compass/spectrum or any commentary on your thoughts on any specific policy?

I think you may have lost the ability to read anything other than certain buzz words and these just trigger default responses that actually don't make any sense in the context of what you are replying to.

Are you a bot Josh, like seriously? This is literally the third time in a row in just one thread where you've completely missed the entire context of what was being said and responded to something that wasn't being said at all.

I've heard about bots on sites but never encountered one before and didn't think someone would go to the effort of hacking a City forum. Would explain an awful lot though I guess.

If you are human you might want to take a look at this prob. help you out...

https://www.universalclass.com/i/course ... on-101.htm

If you are a bot did you know there is no such thing as Silicon Heaven?

I'm the one who gets things wrong??? Are you forgetting when you had to get rid of 2/3rds of your original post because it was bollocks? Or the failed attempt at an insult from your last post?

Of course this argument can be flipped on its head - many can.

But what we are talking about here is Trump and his actions, not those of anyone else which should be dealt with in there own right. However, I agree some of the points that you have raised aren’t acceptable - politics shouldn’t ever bring anything that suggests violence or ‘physical action’ into it.

As the the leader of his country, rightly or wrongly he will and should be held to the very highest standard. Any president will get more media coverage than any other politician and the words, language, narrative they use will carry more weight than any other politician.

Let’s be clear here - Trump was not convicted here due to politics. Nothing else. I can’t imagine how families of people who died that day would have felt hearing McConnell come out and say what he said after voting that Trump wasn’t guilty - if McConnell had voted guilty, it is very likely more republicans would have done so. The argument about it not being constitutional was a sham 1. Because the replicants actively delayed the trial until he was out of office and 2. Because the senate on the first day of the trial voted that it was constitutional...but then republicans decided to ignore that ruling.

If Biden had done all of the things Trump had pre, during and post the election and BLM were invading the capitol holding up the vote, holding up flags and taking the knee i suspect all republicans would have convicted him...president at the time or not.

But that is the point - regardless of anyone’s politics the spectacle that has been on show for the last months and years shouldn’t be tolerated from any side of the fence.

I've read this a few times before responding properly because I think it is a measured and balanced reply, I salute you on that

There are some important points I think we absolutely agree on.

1) Political violence is wrong.
2) There has been plenty of blame on both sides of the political aisle.

It is certainly a start and I also take your point about the discussion being about Trump not anyone else. I can see how that could be viewed as Whataboutism (not that you have inferred) that but I can see how that could apply in the context of this thread.



Where I disagree, and I suppose this is where other politicians come into the discussion, is that Trump should be held to a higher standard as the President. You say rightly or wrongly, and I can understand that from a moral standpoint. Should we hold the POTUS in higher esteem than a Senator? I agree we should but it's also a highly subjective and emotive position.

However, from a legal perspective, which is what the impeachment was about, no absolutely not.

All public servants should be accountable on the same basis, under the same legal framework, all must be treated equally there can be no additional standards for Trump to meet that it is OK for Harris, Waters, Cortez etc to not meet.

The law needs to be above the sway of emotion and based solely on facts and interpreted within the parameters of judicial legislation.

You argue Trump was not convicted because of politics, to a degree that is true, but it was also always going to be the case. The issue with impeachment proceedings is that they are a unique process involving both political and legal elements.

As I posted earlier, there never was any solid legal argument for impeachment on the only article in place incitement to insurrection. If it was a purely legal matter he simply couldn't have been convicted.



The key reasoning behind that statement:

1.) Incitement has a very clear legal definition and he has never once strayed into that.

2.) The other argument put forward, that the constant denial of the election results and accusations of fraud inspired the actions of the 6th Jan, can be mitigated by the argument Trump had a constitutional duty to pursue every legal recourse to investigate these highly unusual and certainly anomalous election results under the 14th Amendment.

3.) The language he used while doing so, while perhaps unpalatable to some ears, again never strayed into the legal definition of incitement.

So from a legal standpoint, there was just nothing there to convict him. The only way he could have been found guilty was if enough Senators crossed the aisle to vote against party lines.



Republican senators know overwhelmingly that their constituents support Trump (remember he had the highest ever vote of any sitting president) and let's be honest politicians of all sides very rarely do something that jeopardises their grip on power.

So even if they a Republican Senator hated Trump, unless there was explicit, cast-iron proof that Trump was guilty within the framework of the law, so they could defend their position when it came to their re-election, then the likelihood of them risking the wrath of their constituents is tiny.

The only way a conviction could have come about would have been as I said in my first post on this thread, to widen the parameters of what is inciteful language. However, if that had been done it would have opened the door to reciprocal impeachments/prosecutions of a number of high profile democrats all of whom would be vulnerable as a direct result of the precedent set in Trump's impeachment.

So again, realistically, that was never going to happen.



So we get back to the same question I asked in my first post on the thread - Why?

If the Democrats knew the impeachment was never going to go against him, and it was destined to fail from the start what was the point in it all?

All it has done is sustained and even widened the divide and entrenched emotions further on both sides. Seems like the antithesis of reaching out for unity to me.

On that note, I think we could go back and forth on this for some time with different perspectives, but the most important point you make in your final line is one I wholeheartedly agree with and I hope that somehow people can start edging away from the tribal extremes (that one is for Josh ) and start finding common ground in the middle once more.

It's why I'm such a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard, I really think it is politicians like her that will be able to unite the politically homeless of the centre-left and right again and I just hope she is given the platform to do so.

I'm the one who gets things wrong??? Are you forgetting when you had to get rid of 2/3rds of your original post because it was bollocks? Or the failed attempt at an insult from your last post?

Sorry Josh I had completely forgotten about all the other shite you asked in that post.

Funnily enough, I had actually already written the response and then remembered you have form for only being able to think of one issue at a time so didn't want to over-burden you with too many thoughts and cut them out in case I broke your programming. Fortunately, being a good-boy scout I copied them onto a word doc just in case and had it ready to hand.

Beep boop boop bop

Biden administration has signed more executive orders than Obama, Bush and Clinton combined'.

A) Thats completely wrong, he's at around 1/10th of obamas alone (who had a similar amount to trump)

Yeah sorry, I meant to say within the first month. Not a deliberate omission but your right to correct me on it.

First-month executive orders:

Biden: 28
Trump: 12
Obama: 16
Bush: 7
Clinton: 6

B) Why is that bad?

There are checks and balances of three tiers of US legislation for a reason. Executive orders to a degree (admittedly a limited degree as they cannot introduce law but only retract law) but still making such sweeping wholesale changes shows a disregard for that structure in bypassing it.

C) Which do you disagree with? Looking at the list you've got: racial equality, census, corona response, anti discrimination, ethics, climate change, and masks for the first 7.

Off the top of my head...

rejoining the Paris Climate Accord which is a totally meaningless bit of public backslapping and nothing more (have you actually read what Pakistan commitment is in this agreement it is an absolute joke)

while simultaneously ending the keystone pipeline project which will massively increase not only the cost of energy generation within the US but also hugely increase the Co2 footprint of importing oil into the US as it the oil will now just be sent by boat and road.

Reintroducing Critical Race Theory programs to federal institutions which is the most divisive and poisonous idea to have infested its way into society and pits us all against each other and which champions unashamedly racist authors like Robin D'Angelo and scholars like Peggy McIntosh to project their bigotry onto the masses because if they are racists then everybody must be - all while publically calling for harmony and unity.

Rescinding Trump's actions on drug prices which targeted big pharma and protected consumers - so important drugs like insulin will cost more and reneging on a $2K aid cheque firstly reducing it to $1.4K and then making it means-tested.

It's not all bad, I agree with the order on private prisons for example and he hasn't touched the First Step Act which I think is Trump's biggest success, but there are a lot of things in there that are being overlooked and more importantly, as I said the first time around - a lot of things that are counter-intuitive. It seems like it is a blanket erase all of Trump's legacy approach, and like it or not the Cheato king did some very good things and this amount of executive orders are just a lot of empty virtue signalling at the very highest level.

Casually ignoring the huge increase in bombs dropped under him. In 8 years Clinton dropped 70,000 bombs and Obama dropped 100,000, in 3 years trump dropped 72,000.

I'm not sure where you've got those figures, Josh, they seem an awfully long way (as in by a magnitude of 10) out from most reports. I may be wrong but those numbers look massive?

According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command, U.S. aircraft dropped 7,423 munitions in 2019 — that’s the highest number of bombs released in nearly a decade.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoin ... year-high/

However, the important point could be to argue that the numbers of bombs increased. The counter-argument would be that while they did increase the strategy also shifted to out all munitions and infrastructure and ultimately wiped out ISIS opening the door to ending a conflict that had unnecessarily run over nearly 20 years and bringing US troops home.

Something Trump on the surface at least seemed to be doing more than any president since that war began to achieve and still, he gets demonised for it. The sooner the US stops being the world police the better.

Trump selling UAE arms for their proxy war in Yemen is easily the biggest stain on his Presidency and has indirectly added to the worst humanitarian crisis of the last decade. The middle east peace accords were a historic first step in bringing an end to endless wars.

He's no saint, he's not God, He's done some very bad things and some excellent things.

That is the nature of life and the nature of politics. When it comes to reducing US interventionist policies, increasing soft power and bringing prosperity to his nation, I struggle to think of a better president in my adult lifetime. That's not a massively high bar, I am barely old enough to remember Reagan properly but who I have a lot of admiration for. The rest in between were war mongering monsters. Clinton is the worst of the lot, simply because he plays the saxophone which is as all righteous people know, the devil's instrument.

"According to the UN, the US killed more civilians than Taliban in 2019. I'm sure everyone in the middle East was sleeping safely when trump was in charge.

I know the data you are referring to but there is a bit of sleight of hand here in that it loads up all of the civilian deaths at the hands of NATO forces and Afghanistani forces and bundles that all up as the US.

Either way, if Trump had ended the conflict in the middle east it would have been a very good thing.

TO BE SUPER CLEAR If Biden does so it will also be a good thing and he will have my absolute support.

Personally, I suspect there is less chance of it happening now.



There you go sorry for delay - ironically I also noted that explicitly said he's not God. Now there's a bit of spooky foreshadowing if ever I saw it.

I'm the one who gets things wrong???

Ironically, this is the first thing you have got right in this thread

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

Bloody Hell. After failing to defend his wife and the memory of his dead father Cruz is now blaming his daughters for his latest f**k up. The mans a coward.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... te/618060/

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

Bloody Hell. After failing to defend his wife and the memory of his dead father Cruz is now blaming his daughters for his latest f**k up. The mans a coward.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... te/618060/

Lower than a snakes belly..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-56117800

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

Bloody Hell. After failing to defend his wife and the memory of his dead father Cruz is now blaming his daughters for his latest f**k up. The mans a coward.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... te/618060/

He shouldn't have gone to Cancun. Even if the Senate isn't sitting he could have shown some strong leadership even if it was just physically doing something like a blanket/soup run etc. Happy to call him out on that.

I'm the one who gets things wrong???

Ironically, this is the first thing you have got right in this thread

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

I knew all along UFO's weren't conspiracy theories, I get messages from the aliens via my tin foil hat see

Seriously, though this is huge news.

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

Bloody Hell. After failing to defend his wife and the memory of his dead father Cruz is now blaming his daughters for his latest f**k up. The mans a coward.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... te/618060/

He shouldn't have gone to Cancun. Even if the Senate isn't sitting he could have shown some strong leadership even if it was just physically doing something like a blanket/soup run etc. Happy to call him out on that.

The man is a coward. He once again lied, this time hiding behind his young daughters. Hes not fit for office.

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

Bloody Hell. After failing to defend his wife and the memory of his dead father Cruz is now blaming his daughters for his latest f**k up. The mans a coward.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... te/618060/

He shouldn't have gone to Cancun. Even if the Senate isn't sitting he could have shown some strong leadership even if it was just physically doing something like a blanket/soup run etc. Happy to call him out on that.

This is what he should have been doing and this is the leadership he should have been showing

https://twitter.com/HuffPostPol/status/ ... 47300?s=19

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

I knew all along UFO's weren't conspiracy theories, I get messages from the aliens via my tin foil hat see

Seriously, though this is huge news.

Indeed, if I remember rightly it was the hat you stole off me you charlatan!

They won't talk about it on here because as you well know, prove one "conspiracy theory" right and their dodgy deck of cards soon come tumbling down. But hey.....what do I know......

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

bit wierd... .. a reply to a freedom of info request 4 years later...

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

Bloody Hell. After failing to defend his wife and the memory of his dead father Cruz is now blaming his daughters for his latest f**k up. The mans a coward.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... te/618060/

He shouldn't have gone to Cancun. Even if the Senate isn't sitting he could have shown some strong leadership even if it was just physically doing something like a blanket/soup run etc. Happy to call him out on that.

The man is a coward. He once again lied, this time hiding behind his young daughters. Hes not fit for office.

Didn't the insurrectionists find conclusive evidence he lied to them on some vote that he actually voted opposite on?

The guy certainly is a fraud but (like Trump) one able to control the unthinking who like to be led...

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

bit wierd... .. a reply to a freedom of info request 4 years later...

If the sun is MSM we are seriously fucked. What does it say? I'm not clicking on anything to do with that disgrace of a newspaper.

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

bit wierd... .. a reply to a freedom of info request 4 years later...

If the sun is MSM we are seriously fucked. What does it say? I'm not clicking on anything to do with that disgrace of a newspaper.

Spot on. The sun is nothing more than a right wing comic.

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

bit wierd... .. a reply to a freedom of info request 4 years later...

If the sun is MSM we are seriously fucked. What does it say? I'm not clicking on anything to do with that disgrace of a newspaper.

I'm told it says David Sullivan was born on Mars, as well as in Penarth and the East End on the same day, so he knows that there is life on Mars even after David Bowie

The first item found was not, as reported, a McDonalds but rather a corner shop selling dated copies of 'The Sunday Sport' rag

This was the paper that boasted a pair of boobs on every page; although on one day they had to put up images of Swansea players Alan Tate and Lee Trundle on the supposed 'Sports' page to keep that going...

Sullivan, according to the article, was a 'happy go lucky' lad, who earned his pocket money exercising Shergar, keeping Elvis's guitar tuned and providing Lord Lucan with reading material appropriate to his status as a member of the disgraced aristocracy

Don't need to read 'The Sun' to know it only ever prints the facts on any matter...NOT!

Anyone still defending Ted Cruz?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-56129833

Watch this space......

P.S. UFO's a conspiracy theory????.....not according to The Sun..MSM!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14038945/ ... o-crashes/

bit wierd... .. a reply to a freedom of info request 4 years later...

If the sun is MSM we are seriously fucked. What does it say? I'm not clicking on anything to do with that disgrace of a newspaper.

fella wrote to the defense intelligence agency basically asking about info on whether they have materials or debris from UFOs... the reply 3 years later seems to say they do.... who knows how legit any of it is ?

Anyone still defending Ted Cruz?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-56129833

No offence mate but you seem desperate to make this point.

We get it you don't like Cruz.

But I'm not sure anyone is actually defending him, A couple of us mentioned him in passing earlier in the thread, that he seems to be looking a bit further ahead than a lot of Republicans and seems a fairly shrewd operator.

He has since then made a shitty call going to Cancun and the only other person that commented on that other than you was me - and I said it was a bad decision and he should have stayed at home. So not sure who was defending him in the first place?

The other stuff, you see a coward, I see someone that chose to not let petty bickering get in the way of working with the President in order to do his job.

It is OK for people to have different opinions, and people you like can do shitty things and people you really don't like can do good things.

For example, I really dislike AOC. I think her claiming Cruz tried to have her assassinated is quite frankly unhinged, and her constant claiming that she feared for her life was in danger and she had a "very close encounter" when she was in a completely different building a long way from what was going on, is pouring unnecessary fuel on the fire at a time when the country needs its leaders to step back from the edge and reduce the rhetoric.

However, she has done a very good thing in raising money for Texas to help during their current crisis and should be applauded for that.

Overall though I think that there are bigger things to be upset about than a Senator taking a holiday when the Senate wasn't in session. He shouldn't have gone, but is it really as bad as say Cuomo putting Covid patients in nursing homes and hiding 15,000 deaths that occurred as a result for example?

Indeed, if I remember rightly it was the hat you stole off me you charlatan!

I got it second hand, only one previous owner who was a careful driver all legit honest guv!

A slightly related joke...

Why do Marxist only drink Earl Grey?

Because all proper tea is theft.

(OK not really related at all, but how many good jokes to you get to hear about Marxists!)

I'll get my coat.