25th Amendment after Trump supporters riot in the Capital

[TwitchySeal]

despite what you may read in right wing media - they're just trying to get you fired up (and it seems to be working).

Ladies and gentleman of the forum, refer hereby to what I said previously about liberals’ attempts to rationalize me away.

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 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.

[squatz1]

despite what you may read in right wing media - they're just trying to get you fired up (and it seems to be working).

Ladies and gentleman of the forum, refer hereby to what I said previously about liberals’ attempts to rationalize me away.

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 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.

[suchmoon]

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.

[philipma1957]

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 guess someone liked it.


I have the following  position on presidents:





Please note found it on a bing search

[PrimeNumber7]

Newsflash:  As of 20 January 2021, Rasmussen Reports 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.

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.

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?

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

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).

[Gyfts]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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).

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TwitchySeal]

There is no reason to have 25,000 troops in DC.

The reason was to secure the inauguration.

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.

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.

let alone the scale that would require 25,000 troops to stop the violence.

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.

The US did not have this many troops guarding DC when it was at War, including during the Civil War.

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

The presence of this many troops has nothing to do with the riots, it is a show of force on the part of Democrats.

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.

[Natsuu]

There is no reason to have 25,000 troops in DC.

The reason was to secure the inauguration.

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.

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.

let alone the scale that would require 25,000 troops to stop the violence.

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.

The US did not have this many troops guarding DC when it was at War, including during the Civil War.

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

The presence of this many troops has nothing to do with the riots, it is a show of force on the part of Democrats.

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

terrorist attack

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 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 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.

[Gyfts]

...

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

...

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.

[TwitchySeal]

Considering there were not even any demonstrations, it is fair to say the 25,000 troop level was excessive.

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.

[squatz1]

Considering there were not even any demonstrations, it is fair to say the 25,000 troop level was excessive.

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)

[Tzupy]

...

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.

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.

[Natsuu]

...

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.

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 

[PrimeNumber7]

Considering there were not even any demonstrations, it is fair to say the 25,000 troop level was excessive.

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.

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.