Bitcoin Forum

There have been reports by CBS News that some of Trump's cabinet members are considering invoking the 25th amendment to remove Trump from office in light of the riots and violence today in the Capital.

While I do believe a Trump Presidency in the next term would be best for America, and that Trump had legitimate causes of action to overturn state-specific results, Trump did not capitalize most likely due to incompetence within his legal team. At this point, there is no path to victory on the part of Trump, and he should concede that he did not win the election.

If Trump is removed from office before the end of his term, his ability to run in 2024 is diminished, as his ability to play 'kingmaker' in the future.

What do you think? Should Trump be removed before the end of his term? Is Trump's telling his supporters to 'go home' while also saying the election was 'stolen' a strong enough message?

edit:
Edited OP to include the end of Trump's Presidency, and the transition of power to Biden

dumb don trump wont run in 2024.
if anything is learned by historic presidents. it wil be one of their family members that will give it a try
im guessing ivanka

his legal team did not miss a step. there was no step to miss.
even if he had the best legal team in the world there was no case.

his game is not to win. his game is to raid the RNC funds before he is escorted out of the white house
$150m-$200m up for grabs and only 2 months to spend it. thats all he was interested in.
hiring a legal team and doing stupid stuff is just his excuses to go on a spending spree
hiring out HIS OWN RESORT using public funds is just other ways to put money in his back pocket

he doesnt care about american citizens. he does not care about politics he doesnt care about laws.
he just wanted a big boy seat so he can fame it up for profit

time for him to go, before he does anything else stupid

Hm, got a source on this $150-200M that is up for grabs? I know he has the leadership PAC that is under him that he has access to, though he has access to that whether he is the President or not as the PAC is under him in some sort of way.

In regards to OP and the 25th - If Republicans can rally around removing Trump from office, I think he’s fully done as a potential kingmaker of the party and people have already begun supporting the removal. That’s me saying that the only way he’d be removed by his cabinet is that if the people started to turn on him because of what he did. Too many loyalists in the cabinet to just remove him without base support.

Still speculating though, who knows what the fuck is going to happen. Never did I think I was going to be writing about the Capitol building being stormed into but here we are.

I think invoking the 25th Amendment would result in riots in the street throughout the country. Trump has committed to a peaceful transfer of power, so most likely this isn’t going to happen.

The riot in the Capitol is the proof that the 1% that is owning the world is successful in dividing the people when in reality they all just agree to change power so those average heads will think that change is coming. If we start teaching the following generations critical thinking and questioning everything they read I think that a shift in balance will happen but right now with the current majority being willfully ignorant, amoral, heartless and dumb, we will not get nowhere. No matter the politician that you are on when you are any of what I mentioned before, the only change that will happen is a change in the person that is holding the title of President.

Throwing Trump under the bus and persecuting him is a very risky move, so I don't think this will happen. Don't forget that he still has ~75 million votes, and his loyal right-wing fans could snap.

Anyway, I think previous leaders also have some kind of immunity since I can't remember when last time we sue previous leaders because of their crimes.

No previous leader has come anywhere close to the line Trump has crossed with the possible exception being Spiro Agnew (Nixons VP).

You call it persecution, but it has nothing to do with his political beliefs and everything to do with deterring future Presidents from abusing their power. 

I think it's obvious that although he technically did ask the rioters to go home, he is encouraging them to continue with the protests. We'll have to see in the next few days, but in my eyes, a peaceful transfer of power isn't likely to happen. But regardless, the 25th Amendment is very likely to be invoked, if only for the current government to disassociate with Trump, and preserve their future careers. It's clearly a bad look to allow this maniac to rule the country as he has been.

It is just a talk.  Republicans lost in more than one way.  They lost this election.  They lost the support of Trump supporters by the way they acted yesterday.  Notice that only junior members of the senate voted to support the investigation into allegations of voting irregularities.  The old Republican guard went all against Trump.  

If Trump decides to set up a new party, let's say "American People's Party" (members will be called Americans, LOL) and run in future elections, this will split the Republican vote and Democrats will be guaranteed the presidency for decades to come.

Republicans are done for a while unless they mend the rift with Trump which I don't think they will do.

Either way, we'll have a Democrat president at least for two terms.

Could snap? They have snapped. Not sure if we’re living in the same world right now but we did see people invade the US Capitol yesterday and force Senators/Representatives to be evacuated.

Prosecuting him — not sure if it happens and would set a bad precedent. I saw Comey saying the other day that the Biden DOJ should ensure to not focus on that to help bring the country together.


I wouldn’t go that far in terms of Dems holding the presidency for two terms. 4 years is still a long time and a lot can happen in that time.

Pretty sure Trump knows that if he starts his own party he’ll lose whatever support he has left from traditional Republicans that were willing to ensure he doesn’t get prosecuted from a Biden DOJ.

They don’t have to mend the rift with Trump, they have to mend it with his supporters and convince them that they’re going to help them. The reason all of this happened to begin with is because many Republicans were tired of the party.

There's no chance he would allow it to be named anything that didn't include "Trump".

I think your underestimating how divided the Democrats are though.  It's not all that different from the Republicans right now.  The moderate Dems and Republicans could end up being the third party, especially with Biden in charge.

Trump or Biden does'nt matter. While both say they will teach the world about democracy, he is actually just cheating himself

It was nothing, just minor damage.
People with guns can do much more than just breaching the US Capitol.

Yep, both suck lol.

What if the majority of ~75 million Trump voters don't really care about GOP?

Nah, they shouldn't invoke the 25th amendment.

Trump will leave and there will be a peaceful transition whether he accepts that he lost or not.

https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1347103015493361664

Statement by President Donald J. Trump on the Electoral Certification:

“Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th. I have always said we would continue our fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again!”


He knew that he lost weeks ago and is dragging this out for the fuck of it. This was clear when he ordered the transition process to begin. To be honest, he sounded defeated back in November so I had my doubts on whether he believed his own bullshit.

After Giuliani's call to the senator and Trump's call to the Georgia Secretary of State, I'm thinking that Trump might seriously be having a mental breakdown. He's a self-centered narcissist; this alone isn't so bad, and many such people are able to do good things. However, when these people go truly nuts, you can get things like Jonestown. Trump is old, he just had COVID a couple months ago, he's had a traumatic 4 years, and failing so publicly and completely challenges his whole worldview, so a mental breakdown doesn't seem that unlikely. If so, he may literally be unable to comprehend that he's actually lost; he may really think that the election was stolen from him through some conspiracy. There's a risk then that if Israel and Saudi Arabia prod him in the right way, they could get him to think that Iran was behind it, and he could order a strike on them. Or even worse, he could get it into his head that China is behind it, and order a nuclear strike against a nuclear power. These are pretty unlikely, but I would feel better if Trump was 25thed. It's difficult to pull off, though, so I doubt it'll happen.

I think that "teflon Don" really did go too far this time. He was clearly stoking the flames before and during the riot, even if he came just shy of actively supporting them. All of the Republican old guard are abandoning him. They did the same thing after the Access Hollywood tape, but this looks more widespread and final. IMO he won't be able to win a 2024 primary, and his brand will become somewhat tainted in the Republican party.

Another possibility is... He will start his own party. We would get to see how strong the Reps are without Trump and how strong Trump is without the reps. *Assuming that Trump will be a free man by the next elections.

They still need the votes of Trump's supporters.

Watching the Trump administration is one of the weirdest things that I’ve seen. PR for them is horrible, and it never really works too properly.

Chad Wolfe, the acting DHS secretary (who was actually recently classified as unlawful in his position), put out a statement saying that  Trump should strongly condemn the Capitol violence. Shortly after this the Trump admin announced they withdrew his nomination to lead DHS.

Not really sure if it matters given the fact that he’ll be losing his post very shortly anyway, but still something that matters.

trump loves to delegate to avoid direct responsibility, he makes calls/orders out to other people to do things for him.
though delegating is a managerial skill it also as a manager comes with the responsibility of taking liability for those you order around. but he does not understand/recognise responsibility or liability

he got giuliani to make the 'fight' speach
he got his loyal trumpette supporters to walk to capital hill

but when it goes bad he announces that he had no association with those orders/people and cuts off any ties with them. blaming them for their actions and saying they have to pay the consequences
just like when he ordered to liberate states last summer.

i dont think trump is looking to re-apply in 2024. i think he is probably going to try to promote ivanka and kushner as an elect in 2024. hoping they will behind the scenes be loyal to daddy trump and follow his orders

Shouldn't be too hard to figure it out, what with all those selfies plastered on various tubetwitgrams.

Trump is very dangerous and very likely is starting to feel cornered.

He came out and said he is quitting and is going to help insure a peaceful transition for Biden.

Frankly I think Trump will pull a rabbit 🐇 out of his hat and bust a solid move against Biden.

I feel Trump planned all of this and started with this plan back in 2016 when he said Hillary had millions of fake votes.  He always pushed that elections 🗳 are fixed. So his people now believe and will always believe this election was fixed.

This is all so very sad. so sad 😭.

Check the site for links and emphasis.


Pence praises Capitol police after they shot unarmed woman dead during unarmed protest (https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-01-08-pence-praises-capitol-police-shot-unarmed-woman.html#)




8)

I think Trump lost a lot of his supporters by the way he acted since the election, especially in the rally on the 6th. Trump failed to condemn the rioting, and he should have done that. I think Trump was trying to delegitimize Biden's presidency, similar to how his presidency was delegitimized, and he ended up going too far.

Biden appears to be appointing a lot of extremists to his cabinet, and a lot of extremist proposals are being pushed by the left. This is counter to the centrist that Biden presented himself as during the election. I would expect voters to reject this in 2022, and in the 2024 presidential election.

This is very well possible, and unfortunate. He has been making bizarre claims privately (such as in the leaked call to the GA secretary of state) that are unsupported by fact.
Pelosi recently had a call with the military leaders, asking them to not follow Trump's orders if he were to launch military action, or order a nuclear bomb launched. It is unclear as to what their response was, or how the military would actually respond to Trump's orders.
The WSJ editial board called (https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-final-days-11610062773) for Trump to resign, and I agree this would be best for our country.

Since Congress and SCOTUS refused to hear the accusations of election fraud that Trump wanted to present evidence of, what is Trump supposed to do? Was he simply lying about the election fraud? He is being censored on various standard media platforms (twitter, facebook, others). Such a thing has never been done before to a president. In the past, everybody wanted to hear what a president had to say, good or bad.

The point of a lost election isn't a problem if Trump is mistaken, and he really lost the election. To me it looks like an attempt to hide the truth that Trump is trying to project, that he won, and few people in media want to show it. Why not let the info out into the open, since appearances by the crowds of supporters seem to show that there are loads of Trump fans, way beyond the few that Biden could muster?

If Trump lost supporters, it's because they don't understand that the media is projecting a biased and wrong view of things that really went on.


If Trump is making claims that seem so bizarre that they couldn't be supported by fact, where is he supposed to show the fact of his claims if they absolutely ARE supported by fact? SCOTUS seems to have cut him off. Congress won't take him seriously even though Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani have spoken about loads of things that were fraudulent in the election. Powell and Giuliani don't talk like this if they don't have evidence or proof. But Trump's idea was to show the proof through Congressional hearings, which Congress wouldn't allow. Now, the media is cutting Trump off so that he can't even show the proof to the people directly.

It looks like the people love Trump, but the Congress and SCOTUS simply don't. SCOTUS has an excuse... can't hear, because of the kind of law they are, and the kind of law Election Law is. It's the kind where there have to be literal live people claiming personal harm or damage, against somebody who personally oversaw the election, or did the counting of the votes. But Congress is different. Congress isn't hearing because they don't like Trump's policies... because Trump might be causing them to lose money through his actions, even though his actions benefit the people of the USA, and the people know it.


Pelosi asking the military to watch out for Trump like he is crazy or something, is part of the show that she HAS to put on. If she doesn't get Trump out of the way, she and loads of others will go down under the avalanche of evidence Trump has regarding the thing they are doing against the country. She has to try everything that she can. If she fails, she is going down big time... along with many others who are using their position in government for making money, with a who-cares-if-it-hurts-American-people attitude.

Portions of the military are divided over Trump. Some love him, and some hate him. Others are simply following orders.


If Trump truly has proof of big-time election fraud, and if he doesn't act directly in some way within the next ten days, what will anybody do if he doesn't leave office on the 20th? Right now he is showing his proof to military leaders in detail, so that they can see that he won the election, and that there should at least be a formal Congressional investigation in detail... an investigation that is broadcast live to the whole country.

We don't see this happening, because Trump has been cut off from the various media platforms. Why do they cut him off? Because if his proof comes out into the open, many media leaders will be taken down because of their role in the election fraud. It's a good thing that they can't cut him off from showing proof to the military. Pelosi's contacting the military about Trump will act against her when the military see's Trump's proof.

8)

Totally has lot a lot of supporters by the way that he acted. There’s no real way to defend the actions of the President leading up to the Capitol riot because he really was the main reason that these people thought the election was stolen from him. There’s no merit to support all of these crazy claims about the voting systems, fake ballots, mail in fraud, and so on and so forth.

Donald Trump has now been impeached (again) by the House and there is a chance that he is found guilty by the Senate. i think this all highly depends on the timing of Dems sending it to the Senate. If they send it now / in the first few days of the Biden admin when Dems have control of the Senate then I think the liklihood is high as this is still news.

Though if this is sent 100 days from now or some shit like that, then there’s a pretty low chance of passing as it gives the GOP the out of ‘well this is already done and he is so far out of the Presidency, why are we even doing this’ — Plus people won’t really care at this point.

Kind of...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/13/trump-approval-rating-poll-458602


Not that much off the ~40% he's usually at, is it?


There you go. His base is still there and it's still holding the GOP hostage. This is basically a death sentence (hopefully not literally; just losing the primaries) for the political career of almost any GOP senator who considers voting to convict Trump in the impeachment trial.

The Trump party would be middle of the road. Trump is more of a 1990s Democrat than a Republican. His support is largely from the industrial workers that used to be Democrat until the Democratic Party abandoned them.

What are Trump's positions: Bring the industrial base back home; don't be involved in foreign intervention; and secure the borders.

His position does not attract the global capitalist aspect of either the Democratic or Republican Party.

I would not trust the polling of approval ratings. The polls were far off in the 2020 election, and I have no reason to believe their accuracy has since improved.

Trump is not going to be tried while he is in office, and if he remains banned on social media, his grip on his base is going to deteriorate. There are plenty of Republican Senators who will not have to win a primary for 4-6 years, by the time which Trump will long be forgotten.

Happy you were able to figure out what I was saying even though I said ‘lot’ instead of ‘lost’ a lot of supporters.

6% shift though, that’s something. Most of his approval rating came from die hard people, so seeing a shift like that is really something. Important to see if that’s just short term shock in regards to the Capitol, or if these people will genuinely not support Trump in the long term. Impossible for us to see now though.

Republicans like Jim Jordan are already starting to whitewash the whole thing, along the lines that Trump never told these people to be violent, but the election was still fraudulent, and now on top of all this he's a martyr because Twitter et al banned him. And yes, events like these fade in public memory whereas "judges! abortions! Mexicans!" will remain very important to the base. The only thing that can dethrone Trump is perhaps another Trump-like character rising through the ranks, not sure who that could be though.

Totally agree with this. Trump still holds a massive amount of support within the party and as time goes on people will forget that the event happened due to news reporting / other republicans saying that Trumps role in this entire thing was minimal.

Really depends on how much time Trump supporters spend on Fox, Newsmax, OAN following the Capitol riots. Cause these networks will do a pretty good job of spinning the story.

Not sure who is the new Trump in the party as well. Maybe someone like DeSantis could emerge on the national stage? Cotton?

With the storming of the capital and possible pile of sealed indictments waiting for Trump to no longer be president I think there's a very real chance that Trumps days may be pretty much over.  There will always be his most loyal followers and the NY Post, but he lost all social media platforms last week and next week he loses the press corp and the biggest platform there is.  I also expect the MSM to go out of their way to not cover him and get shit when they do (and obviously shit when they don't from the muhThEMeDiA crowd).

DoI really want to show you jokers this link?

Listen to the audio video here - https://www.brighteon.com/7255f5d8-eea8-4067-8c8c-5cdb3b942d03

But you can read a bit about it here - https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-01-14-situation-update-jan-14th-2021-an-astonishing-theory-fema-and-the-us-military-will-save-america-at-its-final-hour.html#


8)

Trumplings don't need MSM. As long as OAN is not kicked off cable they'll be fine. If Trump goes to prison it will just add martyrdom points for him. AFAIK one can run for president while being incarcerated. Campaigning might be problematic but maybe he can hold rallies through a chainlink fence.

I think there are legitimate concerns about the election, but Trump's messaging was horrible. Trump was repeating unsubstantiated nonsense that likely cost the GOP the Senate after the GA runoff elections.

GOP leadership is firmly not behind Trump right now. Trump's behavior is also a risk to the future of the Republican party, so Republican leadership has good reason to not want Trump to be able to run for President in 2024. An impeachment conviction would prevent Trump from being able to run for office in 2024, and more importantly, would prevent him from running as a 3rd party candidate when he loses the Republican nomination.

Republican leadership did not "whip" votes in the Impeachment vote, and if it has not been as hurried as it was, I suspect more Republicans would have voted to impeach. There are reports that McConnel is very mad at Trump, and may go as far as to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. My guess is if Trump is acquitted, it will be narrow.

Amplifying what I have said elsewhere, the bad-faith abuse of the 25th to remove the President would be an insurrectionary act, a transparent sham covering a coup d’État.  Trump is clearly not suffering any personal incapacity; such claims are, um, trumped-up based on the armchair diagnoses of people who dislike him.  And the political weaponization of the 25th would set a horrible precedent—not that the U.S. Constitution has meant anything for a long time, but this abuse of Constitutional provisions would be a new low.

---

I must quote hereby the following, because Big Tech’s censorship is inhibiting Trump from directly reaching his supporters with his anti-rioting message—at just the moment when the liar-media are endlessly repeating the absolute lie that he incited the Capitol riot.  More people need to see this.  Please spread it.

(I quote Fox News because it’s the primary source.  I typically despise Fox News as the American GOP/neocon warmonger propaganda outlet.  Boldface added.)

---

According to Rasmussen (2021-01-14) (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan14) [edit: archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20210114205615/https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan14)], Trump currently has 46% approval (34% “Strongly Approve”) versus 53% disapproval (43% “Strongly Disapprove”).

I think that it’s likely that he is picking up almost as much new support as he is losing.  Hate-crazed liberals are making a martyr of him.

But anyway...


That is an extreme understatement.

---

In 2016, Trump was supposed to be the challenger for Americans who distrusted the GOP after decades of being betrayed by them.  He has always been disliked by the corrupt career-politician GOP leadership, and especially by the neocons.  It was as much an upset for him to win the party nomination as it was for him to win the general election; but the GOP leadership had no choice but to go along, because Trump was overwhelmingly popular.

Trump was the anti-GOP candidate for Americans who wish for a viable new political party—a practical impossibility in American politics.

The only thing that has changed is that many Trump voters have recently felt as many Republicans did in the mid-90s, after Gingrich’s “Contract with America” turned out to be a pack of glib false promises.  But that does not bode well for GOP leadership:  Rather, it just means that Trump voters came to see Trump as same-old, same-old corrupt GOP.  I believe that this is why he lost the election (or perhaps better said: why he could not muster enough legitimate votes to overwhelm any ballot fraud on the other side).  And I am not just thinking this now; I predicted it in 2019.  I basically agree with Ann Coulter’s analysis of this (though I disagree with her about some other things, she is often a quite astute political observer).

(Some context on my perspective:  In 2015–16, I got called nasty names for warning Trump supporters of my prediction that he was a big talker who would break his promises.  I basically said in 2015–16 a much stronger version of what Ann Coulter started to say in 2019; and at the time, I used similar rhetoric about Trump v. Hillary as I more recently did about Trump v. Biden (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5282452.0).)

Now, I expect that the liberal establishment making a martyr of Trump will bring back many of those disillusioned Trump supporters, in addition to gaining him many new supporters.  Whether he likes it or not, Trump is a generalized symbol of being against everything that is horribly wrong in America.  To some degree, he has always been that—it was how he upset the GOP in the first place!—but now, it is even moreso by an order of magnitude.  Perpend the fact that he is the first American president ever to be massively censored, shut down, deplatformed, and even unbanked (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5308922.0).  How could he avoid being a symbol to those who are disgusted by the whole system?

---

Edit:  Added archival link for current Rasmussen poll numbers.

Oh wow, Trump said 'no violence plz'?  Well I guess now we know the truth.  Case closed, nice work.

^^^ Of course we know the truth. It was Left rioters, often wearing MAGA caps, etc., who were doing the rioting.

8)

apart from the fact that those identified are trumpettes.
even the woman who died trying to break through the door was a trumpette

however. trump has now dis-associated himself from his trumpettes and so that does not make them now leftists.. it makes them limboists. they are in limbo without an influencer. they are stuck in the realm of having no leader to support and idolise

trump wants trouble he wants drama he wants chaos but wont take responsibility for it
lesson learned last year during his 'liberate your state' which he then called the national guard in against his own trumpettes.
they should have learned then. they should learn now. following him is not a good idea

https://www.newyorker.com/news/video-dept/a-reporters-footage-from-inside-the-capitol-siege

Terrence K. Williams tweeted:

Wait. So white supremacists stormed the Capitol to overthrow the white supremacist government but were stopped by the white supremacist police force and are now being tracked down by the white supremacist FBI?

^^^ And not only that. But there are 30,000 troops surrounding the capitol to protect Biden from Trump patriots. But Biden wants them to be disarmed, because he is afraid they will assassinate him on behalf of Trump. Take their guns away so that a million Trump supporters can run them over and squash Biden?

Who ever heard of 30,000 troops being stationed at the capitol for an inauguration? Did something like this happen anywhere from 1900 to the present? There's something else going on. Disarming troops wouldn't prevent them from assassinating Biden if that's what they wanted to do.

Is Biden afraid that they might not let his Antifa and BLM troops stop his arrest by MPs for - get this - breaking his oath of office by swearing it? How could he break it by swearing it? Because his (and Obama's) foreign money transactions don't allow him to hold Federal office, according to Title 15, for enriching family members (Hunter) through foreign transactions, as well as bribing foreign governments by threatening to withhold money unless demands were met. http://themillenniumreport.com/2020/08/united-states-code-joe-biden-is-permanently-disqualified-from-holding-any-public-office-in-the-u-s-federal-government/

So you see? Legally Biden absolutely can't hold federal office of any sort. I wonder if that includes Federal dog catcher, or Federal garbage collector?

8)

Yeah I see bud.
I see you are either batshit crazy or 2nd to none champion troll extraordinaire on p+s.
Or far more likely...both.
Not that I need to let anyone who frequents these boards know that....

Awwww. Poor baby. Why is it that you can't come up with some proof that this doesn't count, or something of value? I know. You might have to work for your troll living, right?

8)

threatening an international organisation with not paying them unless they up their game.. is a crime??
well trump threatening WHO with not paying them unless them unless they up their game, must make trump a criminal

I have been gainfully employed for past 26 years as a CNC programmer/developer, so yeah I do indeed work for a living.
How's your job working out for ya bud?
(Besides this one that you volunteer for with no pay, plastering nonsense 24/7 all over these boards)

Good for you. But its your side job we were talking about. Besides, I have to give you credit. Your trolling isn't nonsense much of the time. But as you can see by what you call my nonsense, the thing I am not is a troll. Trolls make sense or they don't get paid.

8)

EDIT: Why is it that you keep on making sense out of my nonsense? If you could avoid doing that, you might become a better troll.

EDIT: All right. Sorry for calling you a troll. I realize that we simply have differences of opinion. I shouldn't have been so hasty.

peace bro! Have a merit.
Tomorrow I'll be like... I sent a merit to WHO???  WTF was I thinking!? , lol.

In 2016, Trump was widely thought as the only person who could lose to Clinton in the general election. GOP leadership was afraid of losing the House, Senate and Presidency if Trump was nominated. In 2016, none of this turned out to be true, but the House was lost in 2018, and the Senate and Presidency were lost in 2021/0.

I think Trump lost in 2020 because he made the election a referendum on himself. Trump has consistently been less popular personally than his policies. Ditto with his tweeting, his personal attacks on his critics, and the chaos that he caused. I don't think Trump had the right people helping him at the top of his reelection campaign. 

---

With there being a day and a half left in Trump's Presidency, I don't think he is going to be removed from office via the 25th amendment.

I will be the one to say it:


DEFUND THE RACIST POLICE!

Let us all now take the knee to protest the racist white supremacist police murder of Ashli Babbitt, who was killed for peacefully protesting.

—Or what would have been peacefully protesting, by the standards of the liberal media, if but only she had indulged in looting and arson, in addition to breaking some windowglass.  Amateur!

Right-wingers suck at rioting.  Protip:  To avoid being accused of “insurrection”, you need to declare a Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone where the government has no authority.  Also, you need to be black and/or Communist.  If you meet these criteria, then Twit-@jack will look the other way while you tweet overtly violent rhetoric!

---

That would be the rhetoric of the morally and politically bankrupt GOP leadership.  —The leadership of the same GOP that numerous right-leaning Americans have despised for decades.  Trump had presented himself as a political reformer; is a reformer ever welcomed by the establishment that he promises to reform?

Now, according to Rasmussen Reports (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan16) for 18 January 2021 (archive of what I am seeing (https://web.archive.org/web/20210118150442/https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan16)), “48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.  Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.”  35% “Strongly Approve”, and 42% “Strongly Disapprove”.

Those are excellent numbers for a President who has been smeared in the mass-media, deplatformed by Big Tech, unbanked by the banks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5308922.0), and declared a “domestic terrorist” (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/15/anthony-scaramucci-trump-historical-view-sot-ac360-vpx.cnn) by a corrupt Goldman Sachs alum and subsequent White House employee whom Trump had FIRED!  (Loser.)

Just imagine if the media were to report on Trump at least semi-honestly.  Or at least, imagine if they were to stop hurling at him a 24/7 nonstop barrage of easily-debunked total lies.  He would now have one of the highest approval ratings of any president in American history!

---

The foregoing began an essay that I don’t have time to finish now.  Something about why I depicted Trump as Coca-Cola (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5282452.0) because he had turned out to be just another GOP politician.  —Contrary to his promises, and exactly as I had predicted in 2015–16.  I only like him now because, frankly, it is impossible for me not to sympathize with someone who is being censored, lied about, and targeted for personal destruction by tyrants who demand the repeal of the freedom of speech.

Food for thought:  Look back to what I mentioned earlier (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5307383.msg56100172#msg56100172), the 1994 Republican Revolution.  After the stunning midterm victory of the GOP in 1994, Bill Clinton was reëlected by a minority of voters in 1996.  Because people hated the cowardly Republicans for breaking their promises.  Many of the voters who swept the GOP into power in 1994 either voted for Perot in 1996, or just stayed home in disgust.

The GOP needs to stop blaming Trump for the failure of a corrupt party whose only consistent behaviour is the betrayal of their hapless votaries voters.

/me says:  Don’t vote!  (Unless, perhaps, you can vote for Trump again—or unless you are in a position to vote for Senator Josh Hawley, Senator Ted Cruz, or one of the other Republicans who are now being cancelled for actually, amazingly doing their jobs for a change.)

My perspective:  I have made a detailed study of modern American political history, but I rarely keep up with current events in American politics.  When I do, from where I sit, the voices of people in Idaho, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, or West Virginia come through to me just as loudly as the voices of people in New York or California.  I definitely have no attachment whatsoever to any American political party.

The historical perspective:  Trump himself is definitely not radical.  As recently as 50–60 years ago (never mind longer!), mainstream American Conservatives would have considered today’s Trump to be at best a pale hue of pink, if not a Red.  American “conservatives” are spectacularly incompetent at conserving their own positions, let alone conserving their country.  The whole country has moved left—and “conservatives” have moved with it.  Trump’s stated agenda is to return America to what was a semi-moderate American liberal’s position, immediately before the cultural cataclysm of the 1960s and the concomitant collapse of American Conservatism.

Note:  I am not a conservative, let alone an American conservative.  I see modern “conservatism” as a tangle of self-contradictions, for modernity itself is inherently liberal; and in principle, I am altogether strongly opposed to democracy, i.e. the notion that wolves must obey sheep because sheep are many, and wolves are few (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219640.0).  But at least, unlike liberals, conservatives tend not to be hate-crazed maniacs hellbent on remodelling the universe according to childish fantasies.  I appreciate that.

---

To whom.  —I need to point that out, because reality-inverting liberals enjoy pretending that they are “educated”, and Trump supporters are all just a bunch of illiterate rubes.  No, really.  To whom, you knuckle-dragging troglodyte!

Honestly, my take home from the Clinton — Trump election was that Americans were not yet ready for a female president despite all their mouthed speeches about democracy. They loved Hilary Clinton but couldn't close her up to win the presidency. They had to choose controversial Trump instead. Even if Clinton had contested again against Trump in 2020, Americans still wouldn't have voted her in.

---

On invoking the 25th Amendment, I like how succinctly the Vice President of the US put it. I saw that letter online I thought I should share it. It's spot on:

https://i.imgur.com/H3mJCq4.jpg

That is the worst type of liberal identity politics, here weaponized ad hominem to deny the existence of the many of millions of Americans who loved Trump—who found him inspiring!  (I thought that they overestimated him.  They certainly existed, and some of them called me nasty names.)

Liberals always do this.  They don’t want to believe that anybody out there actually disagrees with their goodthinkful opinions.  I get liberals trying to rationalize me away quite frequently.

Anyway, I will have you know, there were American right-wingers who voted for Hillary in 2008.  They voted for her in the Democrats’ primaries, in states with open primaries.  Indeed, as I recall, there were whole websites devoted to urging American right-wingers to vote for Hillary in the primaries.  When she didn’t win the (D) nomination, they turned around and voted for Sarah Palin in the general election—they wanted so much to vote for a woman!  They were very disappointed and aggrieved that the country just was not yet ready to elect a woman.

(Nobody gave a hoot about McCain, except for those who are more loyal to the GOP than to anything else.  McCain was just another corrupt party political jobber.  Like it or not, Palin was wildly popular.)

And in 2016, they inadvertently elected President Ivanka.  So there.  Stick that in your feminist pipe and smoke it.

---

Because she’s a woman, or because she is another corrupt, uninspiring political jobber?

—By the way, how did you fail to notice that the incoming fraudulently selected Vice President is a woman, whom many people expect will probably replace the frail and demented President due to natural causes?  Oh, apropos this thread’s topic:

---

Indeed, it is—except that it could have been more strongly worded, e.g., “This is an attempted coup under the rubric of Soviet-style pathologization of dissent, based on armchair diagnoses that amount to, ‘I don’t like him; therefore, he is deranged and mentally incapacitated.’”

The GOP has long been afraid of what the left-wing propaganda arm of the Democrat party will say about them. This has played a role in the lack of GOP effectiveness in governing, and the lack of their kept promises.

As I alluded to above, the media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. I think Trump was upset that Fox News was not willing to be his propaganda machine late in his term, and after the election. If Trump was constrained by facts and was more articulate, he would have a stronger case in overturning the election, and none of this would probably have happened.

Clinton was willing to say anything to get elected, and I think many Americans saw right through this. She was the most unlikeable major-party Presidential candidate in history. Despite what the polls said, I don't think there was any real chance she was ever going to win against anyone.

Your argument distracts here. I thought we were talking about the number one seat in the US — The US President, and not some subsidiary position. You made it sound like Ivanka is the nickname of Donald Trump.

Of course, because she's a woman and America isn't yet ready for that history to be made for a woman president. BTW, is there any politician who doesn't have a strain of corruption in them?

Well, expectations aren't reality. This also you should know that people don't die based on age and that man isn't God to determine whose turn is next to die.

A coup is a sudden, illegal, usually violent overthrow of a government or political party.

The 'Amendment' part of the 25th Amendment refers to an addition to the actual US constitution.

It requires the majority of the Presidents cabinet + the VP (all hand picked by the president) to agree that the President should be removed from office.

Asking the VP to invoke the 25th amendment is not an attempted coup, despite what you may read in right wing media - they're just trying to get you fired up (and it seems to be working).

Newsflash:  As of 20 January 2021, Rasmussen Reports (https://web.archive.org/web/20210120150135/https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan20) has Trump at 51% approval.  Although their index of his approval is still negative, they measure him as having the approval of a majority of Americans, with approval now (barely) exceeding disapproval by a statistically significant amount.

I observe that as the Biden inauguration has approached, Trump’s numbers have slowly increased by a statistically significant amount.

Liberals who believe they have incited universal hatred of Trump are living in a psychotic fantasy.


PrimeNumber7, I suggest that the GOP will shoot itself in the foot if they are seen throwing under the bus a President who has somehow managed to gain the approval of a majority of likely American voters, even when the mass-media lie-machine has been in overdrive against him, and he is banned from social media.

And it is critical to support the Senators and Congressional Representatives who raised objections to various Electoral College votes.

I began to write a long essay in reply to you.  I will try to finish it later.  Now, the above information must be posted timely—while Trump is technically still President.

Meanwhile, PN7, my condolences on your plight in a banana republic where Biden somehow managed put the Capitol in a de facto state of undeclared martial law, before even taking office (!).  Hey, wasn’t Trump supposed to be the one who would rule by brute force?

---

Yeah, gee, thanks.  I had no idea how the 25th Amendment works.  I needed to be informed by the same ignoramous whom I previously had to school on the history of liberals’ attempts to pack the SCOTUS so that they could ram through blatantly unconstitutional legislation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208356.msg55454079#post_court_packing).  Which the “liberals” are now talking about doing under Biden!

Just because something is done under colour of law, does not make it legal; and just because something is done under the colour of a constitution, does not make it constitutional.  The bad-faith abuse of a constitutional provision based on a transparent pretext by people who just want to overthrow the President would indeed be a coup, under a thin façade of constitutional procedure.


Ladies and gentleman of the forum, refer hereby to what I said previously about liberals’ attempts to rationalize me away (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5307383.msg56138266#msg56138266).

In fact, as a perspicacious observer with no political party attachments, I myself independently reached my above-quoted conclusion.  I actually have not seen anyone else saying what I said; I am the first and only, to the best of my knowledge.  If anyone else said the same thing, I must have missed it.  But no—that cannot be!—it is impossible!  I must be regurgitating agitprop from some mysterious dark force, vaguely identified as “right-wing media”.

Just remember that I am the same nullius whose cultural and political forum oeuvre more usually consists of neoclassical nude statues of Phryne, Nietzschean condemnations of Christianity, rage against American world-police invasions of countries that are not America, and anti-feminist tirades that squarely blame men for inventing feminism.  (Because I know history.  Feminism is men’s fault, and men need to take responsibility for that.)  Surely, I am one to parrot whatever the “right-wing media” (!) brainwashed me to say.  ::)

---

I was obviously sarcastic.  And if you thought that I “made it sound like Ivanka is the nickname of Donald Trump”, then either you have a serious problem with reading comprehension, or you are so ill-informed about U.S. politics that you should not be commenting on the matter.

Trump is frequently criticized by his own supporters for the position that he gave his daughter despite her utter lack of qualifications, and her contradictions to the promised Trump platform.  “President Ivanka” is not a term that I invented—whoops, there I go, being brainwashed by “right-wing media”!


I’m sure that you apply the same argument, whenever a Republican and/or a male politician is accused of anything corrupt.  ::)


As a strict rationalist, I don’t believe in “God”—except for the god of Bitcoin (http://bitcult.faith/), and the apotheosis of the Catbat Witch.  —Whoops, there I go, being brainwashed by “right-wing media”—um—wait a minute...

You seem to be only considering the single poll from Rasmussen.  Look at all their previous polls: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

Also you should consider many pollsters instead of just one.  Here are the results of nearly every poll  (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?cid=rrpromo)since he's been elected (although it doesn't include the ones that just came out today):

https://i.gyazo.com/af37d1cf2e4d2a7762d5c617f5258199.png

And how he compares to previous Presidents:

https://i.gyazo.com/3f07fcd727a53b0375b99360a3a8f464.png

See but why use poll aggregators that weight different polling groups when you can just pick the polling group that favors your guy and then run with it to keep your narrative going.

It’d be too easy to do that when you can just lie yourself into your own views.

LOL.

I corrected your title.

It's very unfair that you're all trolling nullius with a few lines and his nature makes him respond with massive walls of text.

---

Back to the topic, sort of. The good news for Trump is that the 25th amendment is no longer in play. The better news is that he can enjoy Florida and not worry about all that pesky presidential stuff.

I might have believed you a couple months ago.  But now I think that you were trying to appear as if you had no preference at all who won the election when in reality you very much wanted Trump to win.  

But it seems like you basically stopped trying.  A few weeks ago you started getting sloppy, repeating right wing media talking points basically word for wor and framing everything as if the Liberals are evil and Conservatives the victims.  And recently you've just been openly pushing right wing debunked conspiracy theories as if they were settled fact.  Pretty sure you're a Trump supporter and you've been one all along.  I've noticed similar transformations in OgNasty and Mindtrust since the election happened.  Trump really attracts the angry internet trolls.

Pretty sure that's a pretty common thing for people to do now. Now that the election is over and Biden has officially been inaugurated more and more people who vocally supported Trump are going to backtrack on the claim to try to get back into cahoots with establishment Republicans.

Curious on what people think of me over the years, as I know that I've visibly shifted in some of my views and have become more sympathetic to more moderate views. Maybe I'll start a thread on here where yall can roast me into oblivion regarding my shift.

I personally think that the Senate won't find Trump guilty of anything. Republican support is beginning to climb back up for Trump and he'll most likely be able to get his allies in the Senate to say that the country must move on and allow healing to occur. That's the angle I see people using with the most success.

It may depend on whether Trump will sit at Mar-a-Lago with a KFC bucket and cry quietly about the lost Twitter account, or find some other outlet for his grievances. Himself he might be too lazy to actually do something about it but I'd be shocked if there isn't some enterprising grifter in his surroundings who could exploit his popularity, at least for a short-term profit (donations etc). Maybe Bannon can help him out now that he's been pardoned.

I guess someone liked it. ;D


I have the following  position on presidents:


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_82jYjcjk6wM/STRhyPHjKwI/AAAAAAAAAH0/eToDOvgBeQE/s400/1obama_meet_new_boss_same_old_bos_308775.jpg


Please note found it on a bing search

It is difficult to trust any poll for various reasons, such as political motives, and the difficulty in getting a true sample of the population with the advent of cell phones.




I think this is a show of force on the part of the Democrats. I think the purpose was to prevent any kind of protests against Biden during his inauguration, and obviously, this is concerning.

- two weeks earlier the Capital was attacked, for the first time since the British attacked it, in attempt to stop Biden from becoming president.
- they still haven't caught whoever left the pipe bombs
- there has been tons of online chatter planning similar attacks
- Biden, Harris, Obama, Bush, Clintons, Pelosi - all the main villains of every qanon conspiracy theory all in the same place at the same time

Don't worry, since nothing horrible happened there will be plenty of opportunity for people to protest whatever they want.

None of your points are relevant to the concern that the military presence was meant to stifle American's ability to exercise their first amendment right to protest. The United States is not China. The threat of a few extremists committing violence is not a reason to prevent Americans from voicing their concerns. The Chinese government used the actions of a few violent extremists many years ago to suppress the rights of their citizens, including the right to privacy, and to think freely (the violent extremists have been used as the basis for sending millions of minorities to concentration/reeducation camps).

US citizens were already getting fucked over long before this capitol riot. Snowden exposed this corruption but unfortunately Americans forget very quickly that Obama was in office and allowed his NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant :/ Too bad Trump was too cowardly to pardon him.

None of your points are relevant to why there was so much security during inauguration since it wasn't to stifle American's ability to exercise their first amendment right to protest, it was about National Security.  The military is present at every inauguration and SOTU, my points were just explaining why they had the threat level so much higher than previous ones.

Consider what your response would be if this were Trumps inauguration.  Mine would be the same - I don't think yours would though.

Snowden has applied for Russian citizenship, which means he is willing to pledge allegiance to the Russian government, which is an enemy of the United States. Some people also argue that Snowden revealed more classified information than was necessary to alert US citizens of the spying abuses, but this is debatable. For me, the red line is Snowden applying for citizenship of one of our enemies, and as such am not in favor of him getting pardoned.

There is no reason to have 25,000 troops in DC. This is an occupation of the US capital. There was no credible evidence there was going to be violence on any scale (beyond the 'normal' violence we see in Democrat-run cities every day), let alone the scale that would require 25,000 troops to stop the violence. The US did not have this many troops guarding DC when it was at War, including during the Civil War. The presence of this many troops has nothing to do with the riots, it is a show of force on the part of Democrats.

The reason was to secure the inauguration.


Yes, there was.  The Capital was attacked 2 weeks earlier, the goal was to stop the winner of the election from becoming president.  The inauguration was their literal last chance.

Some of the people arrested for storming the capital were planning more attacks (like the guy with the horns)
A bunch of different LE agencies said they were aware of multiple plans to attack the inauguration.

An FBI memo for example:
"The FBI received information about an identified armed group intending to travel to Washington, DC on 16 January. They have warned that if Congress attempts to remove POTUS via the 25th Amendment, a huge uprising will occur."

All major social media platforms reported users planning attacks.


The goal isn't to have enough troops to win a battle against domestic terrorists, it's to make the terrorists not even bother trying.  The event running smoothly was a matter of national security.


And in 1814 there were only 5,500 American troops.  And they burned down the capital.  (I consider both our statements here irrelevant)


It has to do with the threat of another terrorist attack.  And yes, it was a show of force, to discourage anyone from even attempting to try something.   But the troops were requested by the people that are directly responsible for protecting the inauguration - Capital Police, the FBI and Secret Service.  


Look, considering the circumstances "they should have had the inauguration online or something" is a valid argument, "they should've had the inauguration with less security" is just silly.

To see for yourself, all you need to do is ask yourself what your stance would be if it were a Republican being inaugurated under the same circumstances and the Democrats criticizing them for having too many troops protecting the event.

I will side with TwitchSeal with this one.

Security of inauguration must be set perfectly that terrorists won't even have a single or slight chance to slip past the security and create a mess in the middle of the ceremony. The extra measure is in need for this kind of scenario given that there's a riot that happened within the month's time where the terrorists even happen to enter the capitol and cause the mess.

This topic shouldn't even be related to political as this was a extra measure to prevent unforeseen circumstances to happen.

No one would like someone to be hurt in this times, so preventing them to do something in the first place, is the best way to amend every situations.

Over the summer, Democrats and the Democrat propaganda arm (mainstream media outlets such as WP, NYT, CNN, NBC, CBS) downplayed the riots by BLM and ANIFTA. Similarly, those who participated in these riots did not face any real consequences beyond the minor inconvenience of being detained and released. In 2011, Nancy Pelosi praised (https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/38431960598577153?s=20) people who stormed the WI state capital to try to prevent a vote regarding collective bargaining reform.

Unless you are willing to admit what happened over the summer was a series of terrorist attacks, you have no credibility to call anything else a terrorist attack.

In 2017, there were riots in DC by left-wing rioters who eventually had riot-related charges dropped (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/government-drops-charges-against-all-inauguration-protesters-n889531) against them. Republicans did not call for 25,000 troops to intimidate the protestors who wanted to protest Trump at his inauguration, nor did Trump keep 12,000 troops in DC after his inauguration, which is what Biden is doing in a show of force.

I actually agree with stationing guardsmen outside of DC for the inauguration. The fact is we don’t know what sort of intelligence they had so we can’t even speculate on any potential threats. I don’t know if 25,000 troops was too much but it’s completely fair to have some stationed.

Considering there were not even any demonstrations, it is fair to say the 25,000 troop level was excessive. It is very rare to have riots without an accompanying protest. The BLM riots for example initially saw many people protesting and a small percentage of them rioting (later many of the people "protesting" became de-facto human shields to the rioters, and as such were accomplices to the rioting). There were also thousands of people who attended Trump's January 6th rally, but only a few hundred actually went into the capital and only a handful of those people actually engaged in any violence (the rest merely went through 'breached' entrances.

To say that 25,000 troops are necessary is like saying that 500,000 people were expected to protest Biden's inauguration, which almost double the number of people who attended  W Bush's 2001 inauguration, and this would be during a pandemic. If his inauguration were to draw that many protestors, I don't think he could govern legitimately.

The capital riots were the result of police forces being unprepared for a riot, and a few hundred people being stupid. It was not part of some kind of mass uprising.

No it's not.  It's illogical to say that.

The point is to reduce the chances of anyone attempting anything to as close to 0 as possible, not have just enough soldiers to win a shoot out.

+1 to this.

Not sure why it even matters the amount of troops that are in DC (on a relative level) — We literally just had thousands of people overwhelm the Capitol police and storm into the Capitol building. It’s not like Joe Biden is personally ordering these people to arrest his political enemies — it’s just for protection of the Capitol and those inside.

I don’t understand the issue here, are people mad that these troops aren’t just allowing Trump to continue being the President? (QAnon convinced some people this would be the case, lol)

Of course the 25k troops were excessive, but only if Biden wanted his "inauguration" to look normal; for the "El Presidente" of a banana republic, the 25k troops are perfectly adequate.
As for the Capitol riot of 6th january, the police has been not just unprepared, some of them were told to go home, and DoD reinforcements offered on the 5th were rejected.
So it was a clear trap for naive Trump supporters, who entered the Capitol, after Antifa and Boogaloo Bois (dressed more or less as Trump supporters) breached the defenses.

Any proof you want to cite, anything that will prove your claims that "Antifa and Boogalo Bois" started the riot. Cause if you don't, then your claims is invalid. Yet there are videos of trump broadcasting the plan of storming the capitol  ;)

It was actually hundreds of people that stormed the capital, not thousands.

Twitchy is endorsing a police state. I believe the purpose of the military presence is to prevent protests in response to Biden's widely unpopular agenda.

To put things into perspective, there were several hundred national guard troops sent to DC in June to help with security when the riots were actually ongoing, and many times larger than the riot on January 6.

This can’t really be what you think. (I mean I guess it can be, but I really don’t understand it at all) - The things that Biden has done to this point (EO’s) have all had high approval ratings at an overall level (low support among Republicans, but mostly more then 50% for all Americans) - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-initial-batch-of-executive-actions-is-popular/

There have been reports of potential threats at the inauguration and subsequent events. If you want to say that these aren’t true then that’s fine, but we did just have people storm into the US Capitol so it’s fair to say that we should have protection for the congresspeople and civilians that work in the Capitol.

This isn’t a police state at all, like not even close.

The polling you cited lists a 77% approval rating for 'Committing to a government-wide focus on racial equity'. This means that either most people do not know what "equity" means, or the polling is not reliable (or both). The polling was not accurate just a few months ago, and I don't have any reason to believe it would be more accurate today.

I am sure there are reports of potential threats to all sorts of things. This doesn't mean the people who are making these threats are nothing more than 'keyboard warriors' and are otherwise not serious.

Another way of looking at current troop levels in DC is that we have more troops in DC than we do in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. I don't think any serious person believes we need more troops in DC than we do have fighting ISIS.

Sure only part of the mob actually went into the capital, part of it remained outside assaulting journalists and fighting cops.  There was also the guy with the molotov cocktails.  The bombs outside the Capital.  The bombs at RNC and DNC.  Remember when the guy with the Trump van sent pipe bombs to all those liberals Trump declared enemy of the people?  Or the plot to kidnap the governor of MI?  

Imagine what your response would be if BLM or radicalized Muslims had done any of that instead of a group that supports the same politician as you.



It was actually ~3,000 national guard troops, plus law enforcement from various federal agencies, another couple thousand active duty military troops stationed at Andrews.  Which reminds me, I don't remember you speaking out in defense of the right to protest when the President had hundreds of completely peaceful protesters gassed and hit with rubber bullets so he could walk across the street and take this picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/President_Trump_Visits_St._John%27s_Episcopal_Church_%2849963649028%29.jpg  I have a feeling you'd have something to say if Biden did something like that though.

Really it's not a fair comparison though.  Even if you totally exaggerate the BLM riots and down play the White Supremacist terrorists, there's still only one group that wants to kill/kidnap elected officials and over throw the federal government.


This would be a fair comparison if thousands of Americans joined ISIS (making it a domestic threat) and stormed the Capital earlier this month and were planning on attacking the inauguration.

But that's not the case.  We can take out whatever target we want from 10,000 feet in the middle east, not so much when all the highest ranking elected officials (besides Trump) are standing on the steps of the capital.

EXCLUSIVE: Independent Journalist Tayler Hansen: A Riot that Turned Deadly, What I Witnessed at the US Capitol Riot
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/exclusive-independent-journalist-tayler-hansen-riot-turned-deadly-witnessed-us-capitol-riot/

If you want to catch up with the latest ridiculous, laughable conspiracy theory nonsense,
simply, search for a Tzupy ..EXCLUSIVE: ... BREAKING: ...   link.

Click, shake head and chuckle....

Interesting, Tzupy never posted in politics until last month, wasn't active for months before that, and before that only posted in speculation.

Since December though, it's been only P&S, all kraken/qanon/covid denier posts. 

You are mistaken, I did post in Politics many times before. The reason I waited to post about the stolen election, is that I waited for the evidence to accumulate.
As for you, DeepState-lovers (or should I say operatives?), you should know that the truth eventually comes out, despite your efforts to suppress it.

Hereistheevidence aggregates evidence relating to the stolen election, and the Capitol riot.
https://hereistheevidence.com/capitol-protest-1-6-21/

I think we might be dealing with a newbie conspiracy fantacist (seems more appropriate than theorist).  Possibly a mentally healthy as recently as a few months ago.  If you just keep taking a couple sips of the kool aid every day for long enough, before you know it you'll be waiting for the kraken to be released.

---

Evidence of what?

First 4 that came up:

https://i.gyazo.com/2288d0adca54b3fe5da54649b2ebff79.png

This is evidence that:

- The DC rally that the president organized and gave a speech at had a permit.
- Someone said "we will be entering the capital", before Trumps speech.


So what? What is this evidence of?

Also, a bunch of the election fraud 'evidence' is just taken directly from Trumps lawsuits (which were thrown out in court after court after court...) and quoted as if they were fact.  They're not fact.  They're the opposite.

Evidence of what?

First 4 that came up:

https://i.gyazo.com/2288d0adca54b3fe5da54649b2ebff79.png

This is evidence that:

- The DC rally that the president organized and gave a speech at had a permit.
- Someone said "we will be entering the capital", before Trumps speech.


So what?

And a bunch of the election fraud 'evidence' is just taken directly from Trumps lawsuits (which were thrown out in court after court after court...) and quoted as if they were fact.  They're not fact.  They're the opposite.

Ever since the  flat earth thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.0) got locked, I have to get my dose of laughable lunacy somewhere else on bitcointalk.
(not that I have to search that hard, TBH)
The p+s boards have not disappointed...

Truth, when all the gathered information is all in the forms of speculations and assumptions. The truth is right there sitting in the corner, and still you guys are fighting for something.

I've read the articles below, and it even says about a man afraid of being recorded in the riot. Who wouldn't be afraid of being recorded in the scene of the crime in the first place. The article is absurd, and full of contradictions.