Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Xzi]

I hope all the people with weird sadistic daydreams in regards to the President won't be too disappointed when he doesn't get prosecuted, because it's highly unlikely that he will. I'm with @Joe88 on this one - he's not going to disappear in a magic puff of smoke. I don't know if he will be in a position to run in 2024 given his age, but he's definitely going to be in the picture, setting up a candidate at the very least.

Yeah...he's already having mini-strokes. He doesn't exercise at all, and he eats fast food daily. If he's not dead by 2024, he'll definitely be a drooling potato. So regardless of whether he ends up in a physical prison or mental prison (or both), I'm still looking forward to it.

 

[chrisrlink]

so anyone hear of trumps travel logs to epstines pedo farm?

Not sure what the personal attacks on me have to do with anything but he will be planning another run in 2024, everybody knows it, theres also alot of rumors around he is going to launch his own news tv network after he leaves.
He is not going to go away just because he is not in office, the media has an obsession, they will be covering anything and everything he does, say, ect.

beg to differ but i feel some vast law changes will be done to prevent him (or any president who incites violence/a coup) won't be able to run again and be barred from any political position for the rest of his life

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

sorry to burst your bubble foxii but https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ews-friday/h_6730f3c932c438afbd93334423f1a680 and after the riots republicans will go along this time not doing so is political suicide

 

[Sicklyboy]

Am I too late to the party?

Georgia woman trampled to death in Capitol riot brought ‘don’t tread on me flag’ to protest

Trump says he won't be at Biden's inauguration; Obamas, Bushes will attend

Barr calls Trump conduct amid Capitol riot a 'betrayal of his office and supporters'

A QAnon promoter stormed the Capitol. Now, he's upset people are saying he's 'antifa'

Twitter permanently removes pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood from platform

Confused Americans Think the Rioter's Name Who Stole Podium from US Capitol is 'Via Getty'

The stories write themselves.

 

[chrisrlink]

and is WV lawmakers mostly idiots https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/poli...e-legislature-charged-capitol-riot/index.html

 

[Xzi]

beg to differ but i feel some vast law changes will be done to prevent him (or any president who incites violence/a coup) won't be able to run again and be barred from any political position for the rest of his life

That's already in the US code, actually. The party of "law and order" would have to completely disregard the law to allow Trump to run again in 2024. Not to mention it'd be straight-up idiotic from a political perspective as well, what with Trump being the first president since 1932 to lose reelection, the house, and the senate. Potentially losing a single presidential race seems like the much smarter choice in comparison.

 

[mikefor20]

America elected Donald Trump. If you aren't an American, then what's the point of calling me unamerican?

Sounds like you can't deal with the fact that the American political system has been an absolute disgrace for a long time, and Trump getting elected was a reflection of that..

I did not elect Trump. I do not take ownership of everything America does. I doubt he won the last election either. Putin rigged 2016. You are so damn inconsistent in your logic and hate speech it's amazing. Your BS about someone probably stole your identity to vote for Biden. Your fantasy world where only the facts you agree with are fact. You can't be this stupid. Just a troll. Go away troll.

Not sure what the personal attacks on me have to do with anything but he will be planning another run in 2024, everybody knows it, theres also alot of rumors around he is going to launch his own news tv network after he leaves.
He is not going to go away just because he is not in office, the media has an obsession, they will be covering anything and everything he does, say, ect.

He won't go away until his base vanishes. Stupidity never dies, it multiplies. He needs to be prosecuted. We will see....

I hope all the people with weird sadistic daydreams in regards to the President won't be too disappointed when he doesn't get prosecuted, because it's highly unlikely that he will. I'm with @Joe88 on this one - he's not going to disappear in a magic puff of smoke. I don't know if he will be in a position to run in 2024 given his age, but he's definitely going to be in the picture, setting up a candidate at the very least.

Weird sadistic dreams is the platform Trump runs on! He's never going to be in power again. His base will find some other lie to follow. America needs to see the villain behind bars. Or else we will get an even worse monster in the Oval office. Lock him up and save whatever integrity the country has left. He'll be fine in prison. They love him there, right brother?

 

[Foxi4]

As he has betrayed his loyal thugs, I'd be more worried about a bullet to the back of his head.

I think it's reached a point where the republican party is going to be split in two, so that is some good to come out of it.

I wouldn't worry about that in the slightest. He didn't betray his core base, he condemned those who engaged in violence and destruction of property, like he has every single time a demonstration of any kind turned foul. As per usual, the media are overblowing his statements way out of proportion. I'm old enough to remember these capers:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." - Maxine Waters, in reference to a restaurant owner's refusal to serve the then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders

"You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives." - Annaya Pressley, in reference to the BLM protests

"I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be, when people realize that this is a policy that they defend" - Nancy Pelosi, in regards to Trump's immigration policies, specifically detention

Of course I know what people will say - "they didn't actually call for violence", "they were being hyperbolic", "they meant to mobilise against the GOP", yada yada yada, and there's the truth to that, but that's not the point. The point is that if what Trump said was "egging on the base" when, in all factuality, he has always explicitly condemned violence, then we have a big problem with double standards in politics.

I think people's minds are more "made up" than they ever have, they know which "side" they want to be on, even if they occasionally need to eat crow for it. I'm sure there's a small minority of his base that feels discontent right now, but I don't care what they feel, and neither does the majority of his base. They'll treat those affected as sacrificial lambs of the cause and disown them, just like the Democrats disown aggressive BLM protesters as "rioters", violent Antifa's as "agitators" and so on.

Fact of the matter is that Trump is Teflon. He has always been Teflon, and he will continue to be Teflon. None of this will stick because everybody treats every political take as dishonest, or an exaggeration, or some kind of parlor trick. Even when the condemnation comes from the horse's mouth, in the long-term it will be dismissed as "just PR" and sweeped under the rug - people are more focused on long-term objectives, not temporary setbacks.

 

[mikefor20]

You use your vote flake term to refer to both sides. You attack anybody without prejudice using that term. Once again I repeat what I said previously. You keep using that word I don't think you know what it means. Inconceivable! Stupid trendy word of the minute made up crap anyway. You're not even consistent with the definition you posted.


Guess the Princess bride reference was lost on you...

 

[KingVamp]

Supporters are there, but if they keep thinking the election was rig, a good amount of them might never vote again.

 

[mikefor20]

Supporters are there, but if they keep thinking the election was rig, a good amount of them might never vote again.

Wouldn't that be nice? I hope they never vote again! What a Wonderful World this could be!

 

[Plasmaster09]

I wouldn't worry about that in the slightest. He didn't betray his core base, he condemned those who engaged in violence and destruction of property, like he has every single time a demonstration of any kind turned foul. As per usual, the media are overblowing his statements way out of proportion. I'm old enough to remember these capers:




Of course I know what people will say - "they didn't actually call for violence", "they were being hyperbolic", "they meant to mobilise against the GOP", yada yada yada, and there's the truth to that, but that's not the point. The point is that if what Trump said was "egging on the base" when, in all factuality, he has always explicitly condemned violence, then we have a big problem with double standards in politics.

I think people's minds are more "made up" than they ever have, they know which "side" they want to be on, even if they occasionally need to eat crow for it. I'm sure there's a small minority of his base that feels discontent right now, but I don't care what they feel, and neither does the majority of his base. They'll treat those affected as sacrificial lambs of the cause and disown them, just like the Democrats disown aggressive BLM protesters as "rioters", violent Antifa's as "agitators" and so on.

Fact of the matter is that Trump is Teflon. He has always been Teflon, and he will continue to be Teflon. None of this will stick because everybody treats every political take as dishonest, or an exaggeration, or some kind of parlor trick. Even when the condemnation comes from the horse's mouth, in the long-term it will be dismissed as "just PR" and sweeped under the rug - people are more focused on long-term objectives, not temporary setbacks.

Well... he's condemned violence when it benefits him to do so.
When it doesn't benefit him to condemn it, or it's detrimental to condemn it from his point of view...
"When the lootings start, the shootings start."
"Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away." (read: if you don't do what I like, we'll hurt you)

Oh, and...
>just like the Democrats disown aggressive BLM protesters as "rioters", violent Antifa's as "agitators" and so on.
That's literally because when violence is employed, it goes from a peaceful protest to a riot. That's just... what these things mean.
Also, for the five trillionth time, antifa isn't an organization or even a movement. It's an ideology. It's literally just "anti-fascist". That's it. (And yes, this makes all those quotes from braindead trump-nuts claiming antifa is some sort of fascist organization a lot funnier and a lot dumber.) Are you against fascism? Congrats, you're antifa! The only reason antifa is synonymous with whatever bunch of Democrats the right currently want to scapegoat is because they basically have the notion of "political cooties"- even if they agree with us on something, they'll proceed to bash said thing and use it as a strawman just because we agree on it.

 

[Foxi4]

Well... he's condemned violence when it benefits him to do so.
When it doesn't benefit him to condemn it, or it's detrimental to condemn it from his point of view...
"When the lootings start, the shootings start."
"Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away." (read: if you don't do what I like, we'll hurt you)

Oh please, you and I both know what happened when the "stand back, stand by" clip was recorded - he was repeating what he was told to say word for word when cornered by the moderator asking him to condemn people he's already condemned repeatedly - it was nothing more than a misunderstanding. Regarding "looting and shooting", I have no moral qualms against business owners defending their property from violent rioters and looters, including with firearms. The last one is a statement of fact - when people feel cheated and think that the investigation of the claims was unsatisfactory, they most certainly feel discontent. That is not an encouragement of violence or rioting, or criminal trespass - he explicitly condemned all three. The problem with this kind of approach is that no amount of condemnation or appeasement will ever be enough - he could be condemning extremism every day of the week and his political adversaries would still remind people that he hasn't condemned anyone within the last 15 minutes.

 

[mikefor20]

I wouldn't worry about that in the slightest. He didn't betray his core base, he condemned those who engaged in violence and destruction of property, like he has every single time a demonstration of any kind turned foul. As per usual, the media are overblowing his statements way out of proportion. I'm old enough to remember these capers:




Of course I know what people will say - "they didn't actually call for violence", "they were being hyperbolic", "they meant to mobilise against the GOP", yada yada yada, and there's the truth to that, but that's not the point. The point is that if what Trump said was "egging on the base" when, in all factuality, he has always explicitly condemned violence, then we have a big problem with double standards in politics.

I think people's minds are more "made up" than they ever have, they know which "side" they want to be on, even if they occasionally need to eat crow for it. I'm sure there's a small minority of his base that feels discontent right now, but I don't care what they feel, and neither does the majority of his base. They'll treat those affected as sacrificial lambs of the cause and disown them, just like the Democrats disown aggressive BLM protesters as "rioters", violent Antifa's as "agitators" and so on.

Fact of the matter is that Trump is Teflon. He has always been Teflon, and he will continue to be Teflon. None of this will stick because everybody treats every political take as dishonest, or an exaggeration, or some kind of parlor trick. Even when the condemnation comes from the horse's mouth, in the long-term it will be dismissed as "just PR" and sweeped under the rug - people are more focused on long-term objectives, not temporary setbacks.

His base will take it as exaggeration. The rest of us see it as disgusting. He may get away like super-villans often do. But he will get his. Teflon scratches eventually. Then all it does is stick.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Oh please, you and I both know what happened when the "stand back, stand by" clip was recorded - he was repeating what he was told to say word for word when cornered by the moderator asking him to condemn people he's already condemned repeatedly - it was nothing more than a misunderstanding. Regarding "looting and shooting", I have no moral qualms against business owners defending their property from violent rioters and looters, including with firearms. The last one is a statement of fact - when people feel cheated and think that the investigation of the claims was unsatisfactory, they most certainly feel discontent. That is not an encouragement of violence or rioting, or criminal trespass - he explicitly condemned all three.

1) He didn't condemn the Proud Boys publicly once. (Okay, he did once... while also denying that he even knew much about who they are, which is clearly bullshit since this was right after he basically gave them an instruction.)
2) Considering that Trump had just tried to convince people that all the BLM protests were violent loot-riots, what he means is quite a lot worse.
3) ...So he's being very vaguely subtle. Thing is, what he's saying should not be a statement of fact because people should not be borderline brainwashed into believing that any outcome not benefitting them is illegitimate.
4) He's only condemned them when he's had an excuse to blame it on Democrats. Otherwise he's said basically nothing about it. (And yeah, he just did, but we all know he was reading off a teleprompter. There's no way he actually used that many words outside of his usual middle-school vocabulary on his own.)

 

[djpannda]

His base will take it as exaggeration. The rest of us see it as disgusting. He may get away like super-villans often do. But he will get his. Teflon scratches eventually. Then all it does is stick.

you can also Impeach the pan. throw it in the trash

 

[mikefor20]

Oh please, you and I both know what happened when the "stand back, stand by" clip was recorded - he was repeating what he was told to say word for word when cornered by the moderator asking him to condemn people he's already condemned repeatedly - it was nothing more than a misunderstanding. Regarding "looting and shooting", I have no moral qualms against business owners defending their property from violent rioters and looters, including with firearms. The last one is a statement of fact - when people feel cheated and think that the investigation of the claims was unsatisfactory, they most certainly feel discontent. That is not an encouragement of violence or rioting, or criminal trespass - he explicitly condemned all three.

Lol.. recorded....lol That's KOOL. I agree people should defend themselves but saying he condems anything besides the election is funny.

He is no way condoning attacking his opposition. But there they are if you want to stop them!

He hands them the instructions and says not to do it with an implied wink. Lol.

 

[Foxi4]

1) He didn't condemn the Proud Boys publicly once.

False, a basic Google search disproves that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-proudboys-idUSKBN26N09B

See edit above - there's a point at which asking for the same condemnation repeatedly becomes ridiculous. What else do people want, for Trump to start condemning people by name, individually?

2) Considering that Trump had just tried to convince people that all the BLM protests were violent loot-riots, what he means is quite a lot worse.

Right, "only 7%" were violent riots and looting sprees. Question, how many Trump rallies did that? 0.1%? An even better question, how many, out of the hundred thousand+ people, breached the Capitol building versus how many were protesting peacefully outside, as is their right? Again, silly. For the record, if a demonstration planned to march past my business had an estimated 7% chance of burning it to the ground, I would board up all the doors and windows, just like hundreds of businesses did during the BLM protests - with good reason.

3) ...So he's being very vaguely subtle. Thing is, what he's saying should not be a statement of fact because people should not be borderline brainwashed into believing that any outcome not benefitting them is illegitimate.

Let's not pretend that those who stormed the building cared about the outcome - they were angry and wanted to vent, in the same brain dead way as "rioters" destroying their own neighbourhoods.

4) He's only condemned them when he's had an excuse to blame it on Democrats. Otherwise he's said basically nothing about it.

I would have to construct a long list of instances when he condemned violence, rioting or white supremacy, but it would take a considerable amount of time as he's done so more than any president in recent memory - usually violent protests were just excused as righteous anger.

 

[KingVamp]

Just read something about losing the Presidency, House and the Senate in 1 term. Hasn't been done since Herbert Hoover.

 

[djpannda]

False, a basic Google search disproves that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-proudboys-idUSKBN26N09B

See edit above - there's a point at which asking for the same condemnation repeatedly becomes ridiculous. What else do people want, for Trump to start condemning people by name, individually?
Right, "only 7%" were violent riots and looting sprees. Question, how many Trump rallies did that? 0.1%? An even better question, how many, out of the hundreds thousand+ people, breached the Capitol building versus how many were protesting peacefully outside, as is their right? Again, silly. For the record, if a demonstration planned to march past my business had an estimated 7% chance of burning it to the ground, I would board up all the doors and windows, just like hundreds of businesses did during the BLM protests - with good reason.

Let's not pretend that those who stormed the building cared about the outcome - they were angry and wanted to vent, in the same brain dead way as "rioters" destroying their own neighbourhoods.
I would have to construct a long list of instances when he condemned violence, rioting or white supremacy, but it would take a considerable amount of time as he's done so more than any president in recent memory - usually violent protests were just excused as righteous anger.

.you should be like Trump and resign

 

[Frankfort42]

False, a basic Google search disproves that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-proudboys-idUSKBN26N09B

See edit above - there's a point at which asking for the same condemnation repeatedly becomes ridiculous. What else do people want, for Trump to start condemning people by name, individually?
Right, "only 7%" were violent riots and looting sprees. Question, how many Trump rallies did that? 0.1%? An even better question, how many, out of the hundred thousand+ people, breached the Capitol building versus how many were protesting peacefully outside, as is their right? Again, silly. For the record, if a demonstration planned to march past my business had an estimated 7% chance of burning it to the ground, I would board up all the doors and windows, just like hundreds of businesses did during the BLM protests - with good reason.

Let's not pretend that those who stormed the building cared about the outcome - they were angry and wanted to vent, in the same brain dead way as "rioters" destroying their own neighbourhoods.
I would have to construct a long list of instances when he condemned violence, rioting or white supremacy, but it would take a considerable amount of time as he's done so more than any president in recent memory - usually violent protests were just excused as righteous anger.

Only seven percent? Are you sure? There's been BLM riots every single week in large cities around the country and every single week I've seen police being attacked, buildings burning to the ground, property being destroyed and every now and then a bunch of looters stealing stuff. There's literally tens of thousands of videos online that highlight the riots that have been going on for almost a year now. That includes this weekend in Portland ...

Newsweek: Portland Begins 2021 With a Riot As Protesters and Police Exchange Firebombs and Tear Gas

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/p...e-exchange-firebombs-and-tear-gas/ar-BB1coO7g

Scorecard:

Liberal Riots: Hundreds
Conservative Riots: 1