2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did not know they made a movie. Weird that they changed the actress for it.

Kristy Swanson was big enough that she was never going to do the TV show. I am with @slyadams on this. Who's next, Alicia Silverstone? These were crushes that launched a thousand err.. ships.
 
Kristy Swanson was big enough that she was never going to do the TV show. I am with @slyadams on this. Who's next, Alicia Silverstone? These were crushes that launched a thousand err.. ships.
Don't know about next, but as a huge No Ex fan Janine Turner was a personal letdown for me.
 
As long as no one asks who Christina Applegate is, we should be fine.

We can throw JLH and Neve Campbell (Wild Things :drool: ) in there too. I know this is a thread derailment, but ain't nothing on topic going to be happy or positive today.
 
Not at all, how many countries have reverted from being democracies to dictatorships? I can't think of a good example. The US system with its checks and balances can, and would, withstand such an action. How he gets treated depends on how he behaves. If he leaves, he leaves, I was talking about the condition some have said where he actually refuses to leave. In such a case I am 100% sure he would end up being forcibly removed. As I've said before, these guys are paid and trained to take bullets, they will not tolerate an unauthorised trespasser who, let's be frank, is sufficiently unhinged they would view him as a threat.

You're going to have to expand on what technicalities you’re using here because the answer is clearly a lot.

There's nothing exceptional about the US checks and balances even if that's a nice narrative. They're entirely dependent on the loyalties of those in position of power. You're talking about a situation where Trump just individually refuses to leave but that's not the same thing as a power takeover where Trump say replaces the Secret Service Director or illegally puts in place a new loyal head of Homeland Security.

Now again I'm not saying it's going to happen I'm saying it could given all the right ingredients are there.

Edit: I went back and found the piece the atheltic did prior to the election. It's a bit scary how dead on it is to be honest.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
 
Last edited:
Particularly like the idea that the Democrats are competent enough to rig the presidency but too incompetent to also rig the senate.
 
Don't really get what you mean. Are you suggesting we should allow any individual to send whatever they like to as many people as they please?

Yes, its called free speech, even on privately owned social media, you curtail it at your peril.

When people post points of view or things others disagree with the recipient can either close down their in-box, switch off altogether, or respond with their own point of view. If you ban people you don't like you finish up with 'echo chambers'.

Also, in the end this is Twitter's platform. They can do whatever they like and ban whoever they like. This is no public but a private platform. Their service, their rules.

This true, but I am not sure what point you are making, unless it is they wish twitter to become an 'echo chamber'?


Its a private company so settle down

Not arguing with that, they could ban everybody, that doesn't like what they like ...."that will show em"

Many are fecking idiots then arent they?

No, they are not. It was George Soros's manipulation of the UK currency markets in the face of euro-zone markets in the early 1990's which more or less showed the flaw for a single country currency that could not be aligned with the Euro-zone. At that point it became clear Britain had to jettison the pound Sterling if it were to ever have parity with the EU on currency. No British politician, even Blair, would risk that. The road to Brexit started soon after this, taking hold initially in the Tory party, who quite ridiculously found themselves on the side of Tony Benn and at the that time of a renegade left-wing Labour politician, called Jeremy Corbyn!
 


What a nutjob! It's unreal how so many people seem to not only support Trump, but almost worship him. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

On another note, have everyone just stopped counting since the networks called it? Somehow AZ, GA and NC still haven't been called.
 
You're going to have to expand on what technicalities you’re using here because the answer is clearly a lot.

There's nothing exceptional about the US checks and balances even if that's a nice narrative. They're entirely dependent on the loyalties of those in position of power. You're talking about a situation where Trump just individually refuses to leave but that's not the same thing as a power takeover where Trump say replaces the Secret Service Director or illegally puts in place a new loyal head of Homeland Security.

Now again I'm not saying it's going to happen I'm saying it could given all the right ingredients are there.

Edit: I went back and found the piece the atheltic did prior to the election. It's a bit scary how dead on it is to be honest.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
I'm not saying the US is exceptional, he wouldn't get away with that in any of the developed democracies. I think you greatly underestimate the will of the people in such countries. Trump can try to put in place a loyal director of the Secret Service (who reports to the Secretary of the Treasury), but that person legally loses that position on January 20 if Biden appoints a new one and you come down to: who will the people on the ground follow. This is where I'm saying I strongly believe the people on the ground would follow the line of power to the elected President. Polling shows that even the majority of Republican voters believe Biden has won, Trump would have very little real support indeed.

Again, I cannot think of a single example of a leader of a developed democracy achieving what you're suggesting, but in fairness to you, no-one has ever really tried. My belief is it would come crashing down around Trump in a matter of hours.
 
Thanks but the speech technique sounds very Donald like. The pauses, the way of describing a scene and then just losing the thread midway, etc.

The FBI should demand that person's identity from fox for national security reasons.

It IS Trump. Someone added Trumps voice to an existing piece of video. It’s two pieces of real media, spliced together.
 
Yes, its called free speech, even on privately owned social media, you curtail it at your peril.

When people post points of view or things others disagree with the recipient can either close down their in-box, switch off altogether, or respond with their own point of view. If you ban people you don't like you finish up with 'echo chambers'.

But surely there has to be standards? Let's say Trump decided he didn't like you and found out your name/address and began to tweet that you are <insert vile thing here> with no proof. By your argument you would be perfectly fine with that staying up and would tell Twitter to leave it up if they wanted to take it down.
 
Particularly like the idea that the Democrats are competent enough to rig the presidency but too incompetent to also rig the senate.
The current theory is that they just didn't have time to rig the other races, so could only do the Presidential. Even though it is literally on the same ballot.
 
What a nutjob! It's unreal how so many people seem to not only support Trump, but almost worship him. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

On another note, have everyone just stopped counting since the networks called it? Somehow AZ, GA and NC still haven't been called.

James Woods is another. It's really weird as I'm sure both of them were fairly left wing back in the 70's. I think the arrival of social media has mentally broken some people. Either that or somebody somewhere has some serious kompramat on them.
 
Yes, its called free speech, even on privately owned social media, you curtail it at your peril.

When people post points of view or things others disagree with the recipient can either close down their in-box, switch off altogether, or respond with their own point of view. If you ban people you don't like you finish up with 'echo chambers'.



This true, but I am not sure what point you are making, unless it is they wish twitter to become an 'echo chamber'?






No, they are not. It was George Soros's manipulation of the UK currency markets in the face of euro-zone markets in the early 1990's which more or less showed the flaw for a single country currency that could not be aligned with the Euro-zone. At that point it became clear Britain had to jettison the pound Sterling if it were to ever have parity with the EU on currency. No British politician, even Blair, would risk that. The road to Brexit started soon after this, taking hold initially in the Tory party, who quite ridiculously found themselves on the side of Tony Benn and at the that time of a renegade left-wing Labour politician, called Jeremy Corbyn!
He didn't 'manipulate' it, which implies malfeasance, he merely profited from it, betting against Norman Lamont's unsustainable defence of sterling in international currency markets. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your antisemitic narrative.
 
Yes, its called free speech, even on privately owned social media, you curtail it at your peril.

When people post points of view or things others disagree with the recipient can either close down their in-box, switch off altogether, or respond with their own point of view. If you ban people you don't like you finish up with 'echo chambers'.
I think we discussed this yesterday, but you raise an interesting point, but there is also a counter point. Its possible, and it has demonstrably happened (Brexit) where a well organised, long term misinformation campaign can indoctrinate a large section of the populace. If you target and spend 10 years telling people the things they want to hear, it will permeate and you can start to steer them. It comes the point where they no longer follow the message but the messenger (e.g. you can see Fox News will flip its position 180 degrees depending on who is in the White House and their viewers will agree with them). This basically means 'free speech' can be used to create a political militia that you can bend to your will. This kind of action has only been possible since the advent of the web, most notably open social media. 20 years ago this would just be some people shouting on a street corner, you could never achieve critical mass for your views to get hold.

The question is, what can be done about this? In an ideal world you could fight this misinformation with information, but that's not how humans work. The most obvious solution is that you don't curtail their free speech, you merely remove their ability to have a huge platform. They have no right to it, they can still say what they like, but THEY have to do the work to get their opinions out there. This means, by definition, the views have to be reasonable to enough people that it grows organically.
 
Yes, its called free speech, even on privately owned social media, you curtail it at your peril.

When people post points of view or things others disagree with the recipient can either close down their in-box, switch off altogether, or respond with their own point of view. If you ban people you don't like you finish up with 'echo chambers'.



This true, but I am not sure what point you are making, unless it is they wish twitter to become an 'echo chamber'?






No, they are not. It was George Soros's manipulation of the UK currency markets in the face of euro-zone markets in the early 1990's which more or less showed the flaw for a single country currency that could not be aligned with the Euro-zone. At that point it became clear Britain had to jettison the pound Sterling if it were to ever have parity with the EU on currency. No British politician, even Blair, would risk that. The road to Brexit started soon after this, taking hold initially in the Tory party, who quite ridiculously found themselves on the side of Tony Benn and at the that time of a renegade left-wing Labour politician, called Jeremy Corbyn!

Read this
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.