Donald! Trump!

they will be very carefully monitoring the public’s response online etc

Yep. Trump’s favourite tactic is to “joke” about stuff and see what the reaction is on Twitter and at rallies.

If it’s bad he just says the liberal snowflakes in fake news can’t take a joke.

On that video I’d say less than 1 in 15 were wearing masks. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Having covid burn through trump supporters is clearly desirable and if they wear trump cheerleader crap all the time then it could be contained in that demograpic?

I don’t see many indications that the military will do differently.

Don’t be too sure about that, very high up figures in the US military have made it very clear that they won’t be dragged into Angry Tinkerbell’s fascist games.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/13/donald-trump-contempt-military-world-allies

I don’t see many indications that the military will do differently. So yeah it will be short, bloody and a genocide on a scale never before seen.

As CountZero has already pointed out, the US military has made it very clear that their duty is to America and the constitution, not the President.

I think some sort of violence is quite likely, but some on here do seem to be actively wanting a ring side seat to some dystopian apocalypse.

On that note, there’s a documentary on Netflix at the minute called the Social Dilemma.

They interview mostly former/current techs for the likes of a Google/Facebook etc, one of them suggested that if things carry on as they are they’re expecting the US to descend into civil war as a result of tech companies business models driven by capturing attention by any means necessary.

I think some sort of violence is quite likely,

I think ample groundwork has been laid for the next president to be assassinated frankly. Theres been much commentary on how Biden is too old (despite being hardly any older than Trump and obviously healthier)  but I doubt you could offer good odds on any democrat following trump to survive their term.

The situation was toxic enough in the run up to the last election - even with Clinton having the majority of the popular vote there was no way she was going to contest the result - Trump has painted crosshairs on her.

They interview mostly former/current techs for the likes of a Google/Facebook etc, one of them suggested that if things carry on as they are they’re expecting the US to descend into civil war as a result of tech companies business models driven by capturing attention by any means necessary.

Interviews and investigations of members of extremist groups suggest more than half of them joined those groups because Facebook suggested it to them.

Yeah it is a problem you see with all social media: the algorithms identify your interests and suggest related stuff. That can be very helpful but can also quickly pull people down an ever-deepening rabbithole.

Their views get more and more extreme, but because they are surrounded by other people in the same rabbithole, those views are normalised and validated to the point that rational mainstream views seem extreme to them.

It's a driving force behind the rise of cults and conspiracies on the internet.

And the more extreme Trumpers could definitely be considered a cult (though same can be said for left wingers too!)

My God! Let's hope the Antifa people don't learn how to weaponize exploding trees.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1305570417873244160

Well, seems forestry may be a small factor - compared to climate change - but when you look at who is responsible for the forests.....🤦‍♂️

BBC News - US West Coast fires: Is Trump right to blame forest management?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46183690

Interviews and investigations of members of extremist groups suggest more than half of them joined those groups because Facebook suggested it to them.

How they get to the edge of the rabbit hole is interesting too. How britain first got to be the most liked UK political Facebook page was down to them having a year or so of posts that were ‘like if you hate animal cruelty/cancer/domestic abuse’ or ‘like to show support for ‘our boys’/nhs workers’ etc which built an audience for the more colourful stuff. Not everyone stayed obviously, but enough did, and Facebook then starts suggesting other further right wing stuff, and down the hole you go.

Well, seems forestry may be a small factor – compared to climate change – but when you look at who is responsible for the forests…..🤦‍♂️

BBC News – US West Coast fires: Is Trump right to blame forest management?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46183690/blockquote >

Ha, thanks for highlighting that. The trouble is that the only people who will be aware of that fact are the people who like to laugh / despair at Trump. These messages sadly don't get through to anyone likely to vote for him. It's maddening.

 

These messages sadly don’t get through to anyone likely to vote for him. It’s maddening.

Too many words.

Trump: ‘Vuhrry vuhrry confusing. It’s simple. They want you to be confused. Nasty people/the Left don’t want us to solve these problems so they print fake news. But it’s vuhrry simple. They hate America.

Trumpist: (purring noise)

Trump: ‘They will not divide us. BUILD THAT WALL’

(endless purring, some gunfire)

The youtube "algorithm" is getting worse. The main problem for me is just a lack of variety of the stuff I am actually interested in, ie sport and outdoors activities. But actually click on anything political, even left wing content and I get swamped by right wing click bait "Shapiro destroys SJW" type bullshit. The past 2 days I have spent more time clearing some fruitloop american evangelistic MacArthur from my feed didn't have a clue who he was till I googled him (apparently some covid denier liberal conspiracy nut who runs a megachurch), and I don't have a clue how he could have been linked to anything I clicked on recently, so assume he pays to be pushed to everyone.

Finished the Cohen book now, started the Woodward one this morning. Getting a bit 'Trump'd out'.

This amused me. 'Support our troops!' with a pic of some MiGs and Russian's with AKs.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/trump-ad-asks-people-to-support-the-troops-but-it-uses-a-picture-of-russian-jets-414883

‘Support our troops!’ with a pic of some MiGs and Russian’s with AKs.

as we're talking Trump here, they didn't make a mistake..........

Ruth Bader Gingsburg died overnight and in an unsurprisng move Mitch McConnell has reveresed his position from the last election and is going to try and ram through Trumps new nominee

Ruth Bader Gingsburg died overnight

Oh bollocks. That's the seat they need to steal the election and stop counting mail-in votes.

I know she was a great women etc and I don't wanna get too tasteless but couldn't they've done a 'weekend at bernies' or at least not reported her death until November? It's not entirely unexpected so expect the GOP to move into gear with a preferred candidate. He /she's gonna be a proper piece of work

The youtube “algorithm” is getting worse.

Never click on a YouTube video suggested by them, create a list of subscribed channels.

When Antonin Scalia died in Feb 2016 Obama ignored the accepted convention in US politics that a new SC justice should not be nominated in an election.
He nominated Merrick Garland; mcconnell and his acolytes refused to put the nomination to a vote in the Senate.
They're saying there will definitely be a vote this time; many of those republicans are still in the Senate.
Here's an extract from a US article with quotes made at the time by various high profile republicans.
Hypocrisy will be rank this time around.

no one led the charge as stubbornly as McConnell:

But it wasn’t just McConnell. This was the default position at the time. Here’s what a not-comprehensive look at what 17 active Republican senators said.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” (source)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):

“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.

Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” (source)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .” (source)

Is it wrong to want another human being to be murdered by some nutjob?

I actually would be very happy to see Trump assassinated. He's a ****ing hideous human being.

I don't regard trump as a human being so will shed no tears when he dies; can't happen soon enough.

Well apparently an envelope was sent to the White House today with ricin

Donald is going to blame China for this, mark my words.

gobuchul

Is it wrong to want another human being to be murdered by some nutjob?

I actually would be very happy to see Trump assassinated. He’s a **** hideous human being.

I see your point,I really do, however it's a no from me.

We dont want this guy martyred. Let him design his own downfall.

ricin or rice in, it wasn't a takeaway was it 🙂

the donald doesn't do rice; he's a straight up double cheeseburger with extra fries and a bucket of bile guy.

Donald is going to blame China for this, mark my words.

Or the the US Postal Service...

Something, something, mailed in votes...

I have to say, when it comes to portraits of Angry Tinkerbell, this bloke has created possibly the most appropriate...

https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2020/09/cleveland-artist-creates-portrait-of-donald-trump-using-thousands-of-dildos.html

Lol, had to zoom in to see. Very good.

So it's probably Saturday when trump announces his SC nomination, could be a Cuban American Floridian to harness the Florida vote or a deeply conservative Catholic with 7 kids (I wonder where she stands on the abortion debate?)

The stark hypocrisy, I mean visible from space hypocrisy of McConnel and Graham, is hard for the democrats to call out given that Biden was guilty of the same thing (taking the complete opposite stance) when an SC judge needed replacing under Obama's watch 8 months before his re-election.

I think this SC issue will play better for Trump, who has shown rare, and relative for him, graciousness in his reaction to RBGs death

Plus it takes attention away from his abysmal covid reaction

a deeply conservative Catholic with 7 kids

A member of the culty Christian group which apparently inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Which is nice.

I think the Democrats have seen sense and realised that there is nothing they can do to prevent the appointment of a conservative judge, and all they will do is turn it into a an issue that Trump can make political capital out of up to the election.

Turn attention back onto the pandemic (200,000 dead - which is apparently 'a shame', according to Donald), and try to win the election by enough of a margin to stop Trump stealing it (good luck with that).

If they do manage to get Biden installed, and take the Senate, then they can go nuclear - expand the SC, rewrite Senate rules to prevent it blocking legislation with the filbuster etc.

Biden was guilty of the same thing (taking the complete opposite stance)

As I understand it (but could be wrong), Biden was opposed to that in 2016 because it was the Republicans looking to change the rules. i.e. It hadn't been done that way in the past. It was a new precedent.

The hypocrisy is the same Republicans who fought to change those rules now want to ignore the precedent they set and change the rules back, because it doesn't suit them this time.

Ah I was being blind, sorry.

His answer to the question of whether he could guarantee a peaceful transition of power after the election is scarey. Are all Republicans on board with this?

The hypocrisy is the same Republicans who fought to change those rules now want to ignore the precedent they set and change the rules back, because it doesn’t suit them this time.

Not really, there are no rules or principles involved in Washington. Republicans blocked Merrick Garland because they could. They are installing their candidate now because they can. It is just the exercise of power, the only hypocrisy is reversing the spin they chose to issue four years ago rather than just saying we're blocking Obama's pick.

Even the comparison makes this decision understandable. Obama was very much a lame duck, he was definitely going. Trump is fighting for a second term, and stands a good chance of getting it, and in Republicans' minds he will be re-elected, so why not fill the vacancy?

His answer to the question of whether he could guarantee a peaceful transition of power after the election is scarey.

Certainly is, and this kind of thing needs to be the focus of the electioneering.

The GOP would love the Democrats to be dragged into an argument about this lost cause, because it distracts them from talking about Trump's abysmal record on a variety of other issues.

WTAF!

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.”

Get rid of the ballots? Is Trump actually advocating for blocking voting?

The GOP would love the Democrats to be dragged into an argument about this lost cause, because it distracts them from talking about Trump’s abysmal record on a variety of other issues.

This is an interesting idea, all this is just a distraction to have Democrats flapping about constitutional issue rather than going after Trumps performance as president

The appointment of conservative justices is an election rallying call for Trump to the evangelical right, and any genuine attempt by Democrats to disrupt the process is a boon to him.

The GOP have been seeding the courts since the 80’s, something the Democrats didn’t pick up on until it was to late. It was explained to me last year when I was over there.

Get rid of the ballots? Is Trump actually advocating for blocking voting?

He's talking about mail-in ballots (the way he votes...) it's just the garbage he spews often makes little sense

It will be interesting if the biased SC will end up having to make a ruling on the outcome of the election

Trump is 'vetting' the female candidates as we speak. A 'show me how much you will repudiate LGBT rights' followed by a swimsuit round. He's taking the Berlusconi policy direction

How much can I trust you? show me

[url= https://i.postimg.cc/9QbBFS2G/Spottswoode.pn g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/9QbBFS2G/Spottswoode.pn g"/> [/img][/url]

the only hypocrisy is reversing the spin they chose to issue four years ago rather than just saying we’re blocking Obama’s pick.

It's not just hypocrisy. It is outright lies. Something we are sadly used to with Trump, but I had hoped Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell would show some backbone - or at the very least have the decency to be ashamed of their duplicity.

Unfortunately though many voters simply don't care.

Obama was very much a lame duck, he was definitely going.

Well he was "definitely going", but because he had had completed his second term, not because he was "lame".

He’s talking about mail-in ballots (the way he votes…) it’s just the garbage he spews often makes little sense

He appears to be saying he would win if there was no mail-in ballots then:

Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.

Blocking, suppressing, obstructing or whatever you want to call it, a form of voting because it favours one candidate is vote rigging pure and simple.

but I had hoped Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell would show some backbone – or at the very least have the decency to be ashamed of their duplicity.

This seems to be optimism bordering on insanity.

It was clear at the time that they lied through their teeth about the reasons for blocking Merrick Garland, and that, presented with a similar scenario, would appoint their own justice. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that Obama in 2013 would have done the same. The strategic value of Supreme Court justices is immense.

Even the likes of Romney are fine with it. It has been a major project for conservatives which predates Trump by decades.

The appointment of conservative justices is an election rallying call for Trump to the evangelical right, and any genuine attempt by Democrats to disrupt the process is a boon to him.

So far his picks have been somewhat like for like, in terms of judicial behaviour/ideology. Scalia was a textualist, so is Gorsuch(Garland was not). Kavanaugh, whilst being more conservative than Kennedy, still finds himself voting both ways.

Yes, and I think you can see the gradual shift from a philosophy of 'rebalancing' the SC away from so-called liberalism to making it a direct political tool.

Obviously this strategy involved persuading Kennedy to retire with an incumbent Republican president and senate, which involved putting up Kavanaugh, who would be an acceptable candidate to him. If Amy Coney Barratt had been the candidate (she was on the shortlist, apparently), Kennedy might well still be there. Even then, Kavanaugh was clearly politically suitable, having worked on the Bush campaign and in his WH.

This time they are going straight for the ultra batshit candidate, because they don't need anyone's permission to install her.

From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54274115

Every losing presidential candidate in modern times has conceded.

If Mr Trump were to refuse to accept the result of the election, it would take the US into unchartered territory and it is not clear how it would play out.

However President Trump's opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, has previously said that in this scenario he believes the military would be deployed to remove Mr Trump from the White House.

Well, that would be amusing!!

However President Trump’s opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, has previously said that in this scenario he believes the military would be deployed to remove Mr Trump from the White House.

That would be off the scale brilliant. They should broadcast it on Pay Per View with proceeds going to charity. I would buy a ticket to watch that.

Much as I would dearly love to see Trump being dragged out and dumped on the Whitehouse lawn by his own secret service, I think the sad reality is we'd see violence across the entire country.

Right now I am expecting the "election fraud" rhetoric to cause an limited escalation to violence anyway, so a recalcitrant Trump would only add to fuel to that fire.

If the direct voting figures are in his favour then he will argue that the mail-ins should be discarded as "fraud". His supporters will take any Democrat boost from mail-ins as evidence that it has been tampered with.

Of course deploying the military would play into the prejudices of the bat shit militias, sorry "staunch defenders of the second amendment".

Maybe naive but I can't see even a radically right wing SC playing fast and loose with the US constitution. The judiciary do view themselves as largely independent, obviously they view the legislation through their own biases but look at Kavenaugh - he's "voted against" the presidential line already.

It would be like a computer game: you are a SWAT guy advancing thru the white house with Eric and Donald jr as end of level bosses before you get to the final boss.

Actually you'd have to get past Eric in the rose garden as an entry level, Ivanka and Melania would be in the later levels, and with mad Kill Bill skillz, and then Donald jr is the final henchman: odd job to his father's Goldfinger

Similar to team America when they assault Film Actors Guild HQ, sorry for repeated team America references and lowering of the tone

Donald jr is the final henchman

Love it. A Scarface finale tribute: