OV9

Beany wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 7:49 pm
I'd recommend skipping this thread till tomorrow, as I suspect he has a few hours left yet. But it's definitely an interesting read.

Read a bit of that, looks like a load of nonsense to me. Trump definitely whipped the crowd up, but he's really reaching with most of his points on that thread.

Bear in mind, that speech was written for him by a professional scriptwriter, and being read off autocue for the most part - so either someone knew exactly what they were doing, or they were so breathtakingly incompetent they accidentally filled it with talking points that were deliberately rabble rousing.

Now, which one of those do you think is more likely, given his history of doing exactly that?

Aside - and I won't hold you to this because that would be 'divisive' or something - and I don't want RichB clutching his pearls so hard be pulls a tendon in his wrist - but can you find any explicit instances where he's 'reaching', and suggest an alternate hypothesis? Bearing in mind that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, of course. As an aside, Abramson is an attorney so historically seems to pick his language carefully and deliberately.

I'd be (genuinely) interested - with the standard caveat that I'd very much enjoy someone nailing Trump to a wall, dowsing him in petrol, and chucking a lit match at him

Sure, for example when he's asking someone if Secret Service etc can "come up here with us", that's not how you would articulate suggesting they go over to the Capitol IMO. It's much more likely he means the stage, and he means a few that are in his eye line, probably an improvised line / poorly thought out idea.

Eg. You don't "come up here" to somewhere you are not, you "go over there".

I'm no lawyer so GG will probably come and spank me, but that's how any normal personal would interpret that line.

I think these analysts forget this attack wasn’t a spur of the moment thing inspired by a speech, it was well planned and coordinated- they knew the electoral college vote was being counted and was their opportunity to “steal back” their supposedly stolen vote. You don’t take bombs on a whim, and you wouldn’t need many to plan this level of attack, as they know if a few people charge in them there’s enough nutters at a Trump rally to follow along- the speech just helped wind the spring, that he’s been tightening since the election by claiming it was stolen and rightfully his win. The initial few breaking in just released it. The speech helped change focus from something planned to something seemingly spontaneous.

First president to be impeached twice, he’s really going to kick off now!

Zonda_ wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:26 pm First president to be impeached twice, he’s really going to kick off now!

Crackers isn't it. Who knows what'll go on over the coming days.

Even if he's now conivcted, and can't run in 2024, I still see trouble for the 2024 election. I could well see Ivanka Trump taking up the cause.

I see that whilst they need 2/3 to convict in the Senatez they only need 50+1 to stop him running again.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:21 pm Even if he's now conivcted, and can't run in 2024, I still see trouble for the 2024 election. I could well see Ivanka Trump taking up the cause.

Various rumours swirling about that she might well be compromised by state level crimes (financial stuff, tied to Trump org) so she might find that even if she has political capital - which seems unlikely -she might not be able to run.

Ivana?

Well I guess I thought Donald was an utterly preposterous suggestion at one point too....

mik wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:00 am Ivana?

Well I guess I thought Donald was an utterly preposterous suggestion at one point too....

Ivanka

Rich B wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:18 am

mik wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:00 am Ivana?

Well I guess I thought Donald was an utterly preposterous suggestion at one point too....

Ivanka

That sounds rude Richard.

Now seeing stories emerge suggesting Republican Reps aided the storming of the House. I do wonder if with the rhetoric of hate from the Trumpster, they have created this monster they now have to appease, for fear of being turned on? Not that I have any sympathy for any republican or evangelist who welcomed trump as anything other than the horror show he was as it shows zero integrity and frankly, they shouldn't be politicians, but I guess if we banned self serving narcissists from politics, there would be very few left.

Yeah, a lot of very interesting things. Also, apparently Steve Bannon is back on the 'good boy' list with Trump - absolutely hankering for a pardon, that one. But he's also one of the bigger catalysts in this whole populist rabble rousing.

You know, the same Steve Bannon who's been propping up populist right wing movements in Europe, and who Boris Johnson lied about having consultations with.

So his presidency finishes as weirdly as you’d expect.

At least lil Wayne got a presidential pardon though

Jonathan Pie puts it well.


And whatever you think of James Corden this is bloody brilliant.

RobYob wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:53 pm Jonathan Pie puts it well.

It's quite interesting really how much we all use/rely on social media. Trump was an cock, but take away his social media and you actually had to make an effort to see what he was up to. Suddenly he wasn't really such an annoyance.

It's ironic that 'Pie' got his big break when his first Trump video went viral a few days after the 2016 election. They've used a similar style in this one too; obviously a throwback to that video. Just love his tirade from 9:40 onwards. What's scary is that if you listen to every word he says in that bit, ALL of it is true. There's demonstrable examples of all of those behaviours.

US politics is gonna be quite boring for a while.

Oh, and I like Corden. I've watch his video a few times today and some of the lines in it are absolutely fantastic.