What to do with Trump between now and when Biden takes over

[SDHornet]

What are the downsides to letting Trump remain in power?

I guess an upside of removing him is that Trumpers couldn't use the "but BLM" excuse after they go absolutely apesh!t burning, looting and maybe worse. Maybe they even shoot enough people so that Dem's can outlaw guns. The deaths will just be collateral damage, a small price to pay for progress(iveness).

Who knows for sure? I mean many didn’t see yesterday happening either.

Beyond that, a message to Trump and his cult needs to be sent. They need to be bitch slapped hard. Heated political discourse has led to mild acts of domestic terrorism already. We don’t need to enable it any further.

Yesterday has changed things significantly.

The problem is things aren't going back to normal, as if anyone expected them to. Biden/Harris had a chance to truly issue "healing and unity" and instead went back to the racist rhetoric of the past 4+ years.

[SDHornet]

Who knows for sure? I mean many didn’t see yesterday happening either.

Beyond that, a message to Trump and his cult needs to be sent. They need to be bitch slapped hard. Heated political discourse has led to mild acts of domestic terrorism already. We don’t need to enable it any further.

Yesterday has changed things significantly.

You agreed with Jelly that there are "more downsides to letting Trump remain in power" but you can't provide specifics. Jelly can you?

And which "mild acts of domestic terrorism" are we talking about? The ones that occurred in DC yesterday or the ones that occurred in Portland, Seattle, etc. over the course of the summer?

If just DC, shouldn't we also bitch slap the so called political leaders who allowed, enabled or endorsed the "mild acts of domestic terrorism" from the summer?

And don't give me the they're different baloney. They're not exactly the same but there are definite similarities and the response to both should be consistent if you're not a partisan hypocrite. It could be logically argued that the lack of punishment for the AnTiFa/BLM rioters emboldened the MAGA rioters. The summer riots changed things significantly too.

Exactly. Too many people are looking at 1/6 in a vacuum.

[SDHornet]

So instead of going on National TV to calm everyone ( like his successor did), he goes Twitter to tell them to go hope and that they're very special. He doesn't condemn them or condemn the acts. He tells them they're very special people. OH, and he continues his lies and conspiracy that he lost. What a joke. He's not a leader. He's a failure.


THEN after his Twitter is unlocked, he goes on again to finally do what he should've done minutes after his supporters first broke the law and start an insurrection.

For a man with media savvy, he sure did screw the pooch. He should've release a statement ASAP and then been on National TV to condemn it, tell his supporters to lay down the for the police. Instead he tells them they're special and that he loves them.

Meh, twitter provides instant access to the masses. Not buying the "should have ran to the national media" line. His rhetoric leading up to the 6th surely didn't help, but I'm not buying the "he didn't condone the violence fast enough" narrative.

[catbooster]

I certainly might have missed it since I don't twitter, but I haven't seen anything he put out yesterday that I would call condemning the riots. I have seen a couple tweets that said be nice to the cops and stay peaceful, but I wouldn't call that condemning them (I guess the rioters weren't checking their tweets - just heard on the news that a cop died from his injuries during the riot). He wasn't blocked from the social media sites until fairly late in the day.

I don't think a FB post or tweet is how a president should communicate with the people during an event like yesterday, but it's Trump so that would have at least been something if he had condemned them in a tweet. And numerous reporters said that they had been trying to get information from the White House all day. I hate to be that guy, but do you have a link to something about the networks refusing to give him air time yesterday?

You know, for a guy who says he thinks Trump is a POS but his policies are better than Biden's so you held your nose and voted for him, you sure do defend him a lot on this site.

So to support the argument that the networks refused to give Trump coverage yesterday you link a clip of him talking to the media that aired on ABC news? Did Rudy Giuliani teach you how to gather supporting evidence?

As far as the first part you bolded, I guess you and I have a difference in understanding what "condemn" means. He basically says the election was stolen from him; the rioters are justified in doing what they did; he appreciates them for doing it; but it's time to go home now, thanks. I'm pretty sure most people would not characterize that clip as condemning the riots (unless they are part of the true Trump flock).

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah, that is a little late. At that point his Red Hats were already ransacking the Capitol. They weren't going to check Twitter and be like "oops, guys... we should stop bashing this cop's head in with a fire extinguisher. We misinterpreted."

He probably should have used that language when he told them to march on the Capitol at the end of his speech.

[Ibanez]

I have a fact. You have a trope about drinking kool aid.

I have video and photographic evidence of Trump, over weeks, fanning the flames with lies and conspiracy theories and telling groups like the Proud Boys to " stand ready." You have rationalizing criminal behavior b/c someone else did it.

It's a lost cause, BDK.

"Incited an insurrection" is an opinion. "Fanning the flames" is an opinion. Just like 'stole an election', if not proven in court, it didn't happen...am I right?

Except we have his tweets and his speech the other day as evidence. His rhetoric since before election day has been building up to it. Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by and stand ready". His speech before the march, he told them to "fight" and "don't show weakness" HIs video on Wednesday telling the mob that he loves them and their special sure looks like approval of their actions. The momentum has been building and a fiery speech on the day the EV was to certified by Congress was the last piece. I don't believe that most of his supporters went there with the intention of storming the US Capital. And maybe some were egged on by others - but it happened. And those people wouldn't have been there if Trump wasn't stoking the fire with his rigged/stolen election nonsense.



His rhetoric caused the riot. He failed to go on TV, go down there himself, do anything to quell it. He then goes on Twitter, after Biden makes a plea, to say go home and I approve of you. Only after he's FORCED to say something, does he actually condemn it.

[DuckDuckGriz]

I have a fact. You have a trope about drinking kool aid.

I have video and photographic evidence of Trump, over weeks, fanning the flames with lies and conspiracy theories and telling groups like the Proud Boys to " stand ready." You have rationalizing criminal behavior b/c someone else did it.

It's a lost cause, BDK.

"Incited an insurrection" is an opinion. "Fanning the flames" is an opinion. Just like 'stole an election', if not proven in court, it didn't happen...am I right?

I'll give you this - you do go down with the ship.

Loyal to the end.

[SDHornet]

Yeah, that is a little late. At that point his Red Hats were already ransacking the Capitol. They weren't going to check Twitter and be like "oops, guys... we should stop bashing this cop's head in with a fire extinguisher. We misinterpreted."

He probably should have used that language when he told them to march on the Capitol at the end of his speech.

But they were going to tune into a presser on national media?

[Ibanez]

Yeah, that is a little late. At that point his Red Hats were already ransacking the Capitol. They weren't going to check Twitter and be like "oops, guys... we should stop bashing this cop's head in with a fire extinguisher. We misinterpreted."

He probably should have used that language when he told them to march on the Capitol at the end of his speech.

But they were going to tune into a presser on national media?

That's a fair point and my wife just reminded me that I said something similar the other day. I guess the point is that in the middle of all of that, the message would be for those of us watching.

And maybe for his supporters who are taking selfies as they ransack the US Capitol.

[catbooster]

So instead of going on National TV to calm everyone ( like his successor did), he goes Twitter to tell them to go hope and that they're very special. He doesn't condemn them or condemn the acts. He tells them they're very special people. OH, and he continues his lies and conspiracy that he lost. What a joke. He's not a leader. He's a failure.


THEN after his Twitter is unlocked, he goes on again to finally do what he should've done minutes after his supporters first broke the law and start an insurrection.

For a man with media savvy, he sure did screw the pooch. He should've release a statement ASAP and then been on National TV to condemn it, tell his supporters to lay down the for the police. Instead he tells them they're special and that he loves them.

Meh, twitter provides instant access to the masses. Not buying the "should have ran to the national media" line. His rhetoric leading up to the 6th surely didn't help, but I'm not buying the "he didn't condone the violence fast enough" narrative.

I think you better grammar check your spell check. Plenty of people think he did condone it fast enough - before it even happened.

[SDHornet]

"Incited an insurrection" is an opinion. "Fanning the flames" is an opinion. Just like 'stole an election', if not proven in court, it didn't happen...am I right?

Except we have his tweets and his speech the other day as evidence. His rhetoric since before election day has been building up to it. Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by and stand ready". His speech before the march, he told them to "fight" and "don't show weakness" HIs video on Wednesday telling the mob that he loves them and their special sure looks like approval of their actions. The momentum has been building and a fiery speech on the day the EV was to certified by Congress was the last piece. I don't believe that most of his supporters went there with the intention of storming the US Capital. And maybe some were egged on by others - but it happened. And those people wouldn't have been there if Trump wasn't stoking the fire with his rigged/stolen election nonsense.



His rhetoric caused the riot. He failed to go on TV, go down there himself, do anything to quell it. He then goes on Twitter, after Biden makes a plea, to say go home and I approve of you. Only after he's FORCED to say something, does he actually condemn it.

I have no problem for going after Trump for incendiary language so long as we go after all of the politician and punduts on either side that do the same.

[Ibanez]

Except we have his tweets and his speech the other day as evidence. His rhetoric since before election day has been building up to it. Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by and stand ready". His speech before the march, he told them to "fight" and "don't show weakness" HIs video on Wednesday telling the mob that he loves them and their special sure looks like approval of their actions. The momentum has been building and a fiery speech on the day the EV was to certified by Congress was the last piece. I don't believe that most of his supporters went there with the intention of storming the US Capital. And maybe some were egged on by others - but it happened. And those people wouldn't have been there if Trump wasn't stoking the fire with his rigged/stolen election nonsense.



His rhetoric caused the riot. He failed to go on TV, go down there himself, do anything to quell it. He then goes on Twitter, after Biden makes a plea, to say go home and I approve of you. Only after he's FORCED to say something, does he actually condemn it.

I have no problem for going after Trump for incendiary language so long as we go after all of the politician and punduts on either side that do the same.

If their language compelled someone to break the law, sure. Go for it.

[Ibanez]

Except we have his tweets and his speech the other day as evidence. His rhetoric since before election day has been building up to it. Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by and stand ready". His speech before the march, he told them to "fight" and "don't show weakness" HIs video on Wednesday telling the mob that he loves them and their special sure looks like approval of their actions. The momentum has been building and a fiery speech on the day the EV was to certified by Congress was the last piece. I don't believe that most of his supporters went there with the intention of storming the US Capital. And maybe some were egged on by others - but it happened. And those people wouldn't have been there if Trump wasn't stoking the fire with his rigged/stolen election nonsense.



His rhetoric caused the riot. He failed to go on TV, go down there himself, do anything to quell it. He then goes on Twitter, after Biden makes a plea, to say go home and I approve of you. Only after he's FORCED to say something, does he actually condemn it.

I have no problem for going after Trump for incendiary language so long as we go after all of the politician and punduts on either side that do the same.

If their language compelled someone to break the law, sure. Go for it.

[Skjellyfetti]

Yeah, that is a little late. At that point his Red Hats were already ransacking the Capitol. They weren't going to check Twitter and be like "oops, guys... we should stop bashing this cop's head in with a fire extinguisher. We misinterpreted."

He probably should have used that language when he told them to march on the Capitol at the end of his speech.

But they were going to tune into a presser on national media?

Did I say that?

The issue was the rally outside the White House, Guiliani calling for a 'trial by combat', Trump demanding his supporters march on the Capitol, etc.

Once they were unleashed, there weren't going to stop. As we saw. And, in my opinion, as intended.

[SDHornet]

But they were going to tune into a presser on national media?

Did I say that?

The issue was the rally outside the White House, Guiliani calling for a 'trial by combat', Trump demanding his supporters march on the Capitol, etc.

Once they were unleashed, there weren't going to stop. As we saw. And, in my opinion, as intended.

[JohnStOnge]

Congress should impeach him to at least introduce the chance that he will be removed from office so that he can never run for office again. Also, the House impeaching him at this point would put the sword of Damocles over his head. If he's been impeached and he does anything beyond the pale the Senate can remove him. No doubt at all: He should be impeached.

[JohnStOnge]

Did I say that?

The issue was the rally outside the White House, Guiliani calling for a 'trial by combat', Trump demanding his supporters march on the Capitol, etc.

Once they were unleashed, there weren't going to stop. As we saw. And, in my opinion, as intended.

Would you please stop trying to draw equivalency between those other protests and people trying to storm Congress while it is trying to perform a Constitutional function? Just stop.

[SDHornet]

Would you please stop trying to draw equivalency between those other protests and people trying to storm Congress while it is trying to perform a Constitutional function? Just stop.

Not drawing equivalency at all, pointing out the double standard and blatant lying about the riots over this past summer. Not surprised you can't see the difference.

[UNI88]

Would you please stop trying to draw equivalency between those other protests and people trying to storm Congress while it is trying to perform a Constitutional function? Just stop.

Are you saying that there are absolutely no similarities? That there is absolutely no chance that the AnTiFa/BLM rioters getting away with so much might have emboldened the MAGA rioters to think that they should be able to do the same? That this happened in a vacuum and there is absolutely no cause and effect?

If yes to any of these, please let me know what you are imbibing because you are completely irrational (that's for you Kalm - ) and delusional.

[BDKJMU]

So to support the argument that the networks refused to give Trump coverage yesterday you link a clip of him talking to the media that aired on ABC news? Did Rudy Giuliani teach you how to gather supporting evidence?

As far as the first part you bolded, I guess you and I have a difference in understanding what "condemn" means. He basically says the election was stolen from him; the rioters are justified in doing what they did; he appreciates them for doing it; but it's time to go home now, thanks. I'm pretty sure most people would not characterize that clip as condemning the riots (unless they are part of the true Trump flock).

You left off where he said 3 times we have to have peace; also must have law and order, respect law emforecement, etc..

[Winterborn]

Twitter bans Trump.

Good news is that I just won two bets with them going down this road. I wonder what Scotch I should ask for?

[BDKJMU]

Twitter bans Trump.

Good news is that I just won two bets with them going down this road. I wonder what Scotch I should ask for?

Not surprising. The left runs big tech (and publishing) and they have conspired with their allies in govt to stifle free soeech from conservatives & silence conservative/populist voices. Conservatives need to go elesewhere on social meida where they won’t be censored. Leave twitter, facebook, etc to the left. The left and right really needs separate social media like we have separate networks (CNN/MSNBC vs FNC, OANN, Newsmax, etc..

[BDKJMU]

I saw where Google took Parler down from their Android? store and Apple was threatening to do the same with their App store. Cannot have uncensored conservative voices & free soeech. I also read where this can be bypassed by doing direct downloads of apps..
https://www.lifewire.com/get-apps-not-i ... re-1999916

[Skjellyfetti]

Next best option: impeach Trump in the House ASAP. Send it to the Senate. If they don't take it up before inauguration (they won't)... take it up with the new Senate. Convict Trump and ban him from future federal office.

It doesn't really matter, because I think he'd rather Don Jr. or Ivanka run in 2024, but seems like the only real course they have.

[Skjellyfetti]

Murkowski threatening to leave the GOP.