2016: Juno reaches Jupiter, David Bowie dies, and American democracy contracts a terminal illness.
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Uprooted by Naomi Novik
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Raising Caine by Charles E. Gannon
The Elephants' Graveyard by Lawrence M. Schoen
The Fifth Season by N. K. Jemisin
The Grace of Kings by Ken Liu
Updraft by Fran Wilde
The Novik, the Leckie, the Jemisin, and the Wilde.
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novellas Have You Read?
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novelettes Have You Read?
Our Lady of the Open Road by Sarah Pinsker
James Nicoll wrote:
snip.Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
I have read and will continue to read any SF she puts out.
Other than that, not that I recall.
On 12/30/2024 9:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
2016: Juno reaches Jupiter, David Bowie dies, and American democracy
contracts a terminal illness.
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Uprooted by Naomi Novik
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Raising Caine by Charles E. Gannon
The Elephants' Graveyard by Lawrence M. Schoen
The Fifth Season by N. K. Jemisin
The Grace of Kings by Ken Liu
Updraft by Fran Wilde
"Ancillary Mercy" and "Raising Caine".
Trump Forever !
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:57:50 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/30/2024 9:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
2016: Juno reaches Jupiter, David Bowie dies, and American democracy
contracts a terminal illness.
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Uprooted by Naomi Novik
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Raising Caine by Charles E. Gannon
The Elephants' Graveyard by Lawrence M. Schoen
The Fifth Season by N. K. Jemisin
The Grace of Kings by Ken Liu
Updraft by Fran Wilde
"Ancillary Mercy" and "Raising Caine".
Trump Forever !
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
On 1/1/2025 10:25 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:18:50 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:57:50 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/30/2024 9:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
2016: Juno reaches Jupiter, David Bowie dies, and American democracy >>>>>> contracts a terminal illness.
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Uprooted by Naomi Novik
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Raising Caine by Charles E. Gannon
The Elephants' Graveyard by Lawrence M. Schoen
The Fifth Season by N. K. Jemisin
The Grace of Kings by Ken Liu
Updraft by Fran Wilde
"Ancillary Mercy" and "Raising Caine".
Trump Forever !
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Putin ran Trump last time.
Just as surely as -- 100 years from now -- Putin will be listed as
President from 2017-early 2021, with a footnote clarifying that, since
he could not actually hold the office, Trump held it for him, so also
Musk will be listed as President from 2025-early 2029, with the same
footnote.
The only real question is: how much did Musk pay Putin to acquire
whatever it was Putin on Trump? What it was is much less important.
There is also some concern that, if the House takes as long to
organize in 2025 as it did in 2023, particularly the second attempt
(which produced last year's Speaker), the certification of the
election will have to be postponed.
Now, I have no doubt that by, say, July, the House will have a Speaker
again. But what happens if Trump is not certified by Jan 20? Will he
still be able to be sworn in as the elected President?
My guess is not -- and when Biden/Harris' term ends, I would think the
Presidential Succession Act would kick in. Since there would be no
Speaker of the House (if there were, we would find just how quickly a
Presidential election can be certified if everyone tries hard enough),
next up would the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Since, apparently, the Constitution does not specify that the
President Pro Tempore must be a Senator, perhaps it would be prudent,
if the House is still in disarray and certification seems unlikely, to
elect Trump President Pro Tempore. He did, after all, win the election
-- and installing him in the Oval Office should help pacify his rabid
followers (compared to what they are likely to get up to if anyone
else is placed there).
If the Senate, due to long tradition, just can't make a non-Senator
President Pro Tempore, then they should still change from the current
holder of the office -- Patty Murray. She's a fine Senator (being from
Washington State she could hardly be anthing else) but imagine MAGAs
reaction if she were to be installed in the Oval Office!
Exciting times, indeed!
Man, the TDS is strong with you !
Man, the TDS is strong with you !
Lynn McGuire wrote:
Man, the TDS is strong with you !
What the fuck happened to you? One of the few that would post about
actual written SF, now heading for plonk territory.
On 1/3/2025 10:20 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:33:14 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/1/2025 10:25 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:18:50 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:57:50 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/30/2024 9:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
2016: Juno reaches Jupiter, David Bowie dies, and American democracy >>>>>>>> contracts a terminal illness.
Which 2016 Nebula Finalist Novels Have You Read?
Uprooted by Naomi Novik
Ancillary Mercy by Ann Leckie
Raising Caine by Charles E. Gannon
The Elephants' Graveyard by Lawrence M. Schoen
The Fifth Season by N. K. Jemisin
The Grace of Kings by Ken Liu
Updraft by Fran Wilde
"Ancillary Mercy" and "Raising Caine".
Trump Forever !
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Putin ran Trump last time.
Just as surely as -- 100 years from now -- Putin will be listed as
President from 2017-early 2021, with a footnote clarifying that, since >>>> he could not actually hold the office, Trump held it for him, so also
Musk will be listed as President from 2025-early 2029, with the same
footnote.
The only real question is: how much did Musk pay Putin to acquire
whatever it was Putin on Trump? What it was is much less important.
There is also some concern that, if the House takes as long to
organize in 2025 as it did in 2023, particularly the second attempt
(which produced last year's Speaker), the certification of the
election will have to be postponed.
Now, I have no doubt that by, say, July, the House will have a Speaker >>>> again. But what happens if Trump is not certified by Jan 20? Will he
still be able to be sworn in as the elected President?
My guess is not -- and when Biden/Harris' term ends, I would think the >>>> Presidential Succession Act would kick in. Since there would be no
Speaker of the House (if there were, we would find just how quickly a
Presidential election can be certified if everyone tries hard enough), >>>> next up would the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Since, apparently, the Constitution does not specify that the
President Pro Tempore must be a Senator, perhaps it would be prudent,
if the House is still in disarray and certification seems unlikely, to >>>> elect Trump President Pro Tempore. He did, after all, win the election >>>> -- and installing him in the Oval Office should help pacify his rabid
followers (compared to what they are likely to get up to if anyone
else is placed there).
If the Senate, due to long tradition, just can't make a non-Senator
President Pro Tempore, then they should still change from the current
holder of the office -- Patty Murray. She's a fine Senator (being from >>>> Washington State she could hardly be anthing else) but imagine MAGAs
reaction if she were to be installed in the Oval Office!
Exciting times, indeed!
Man, the TDS is strong with you !
Sorry, it is MAGA that is deranged by Trump.
And, since you didn't notice, I clearly stated that Trump won the
election. This is about Certification and Inauguration, and how to get
Trump sworn in regardless of how messed up the House is.
And Mike Johnson was just re-elected Speaker Of The House.
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Might be true. The problem with Trump is that his opinions seem to be
those of the last person he spoke with, So he'll seem to agree with
some member of his cabinet but then a week later be wildly in the
opposite direction. It's a hell of a way to run a railroad.
On 4 Jan 2025 22:22:05 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
=20
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Might be true. The problem with Trump is that his opinions seem to be >>those of the last person he spoke with, So he'll seem to agree with
some member of his cabinet but then a week later be wildly in the
opposite direction. It's a hell of a way to run a railroad.
=46ortunately, he is so ineffective that it doesn't really matter what
he says. Or attempts. And I don't expect that to change.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 4 Jan 2025 22:22:05 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
=20
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Might be true. The problem with Trump is that his opinions seem to be >>>those of the last person he spoke with, So he'll seem to agree with
some member of his cabinet but then a week later be wildly in the >>>opposite direction. It's a hell of a way to run a railroad.
=46ortunately, he is so ineffective that it doesn't really matter what
he says. Or attempts. And I don't expect that to change.
Not always. He succeeded in eliminating most of the state department,
which was his specific aim and one he succeeded at. He seemed to have
the notion that he could conduct diplomacy everywhere personally, and >unfortunately no man has enough time for that let alone skill. So we
are left with skeleton staffs in some embassies which may be an adventure
if you find yourself needing help abroad.
On 1/5/2025 11:32 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 4 Jan 2025 22:22:05 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 10:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
You mean "Musk Forever". He's running Trump now.
Nobody runs Trump. Appearances can be quite deceiving.
Might be true. The problem with Trump is that his opinions seem to be
those of the last person he spoke with, So he'll seem to agree with
some member of his cabinet but then a week later be wildly in the
opposite direction. It's a hell of a way to run a railroad.
Fortunately, he is so ineffective that it doesn't really matter what
he says. Or attempts. And I don't expect that to change.
He was ineffective last time.
This time, he's surrounded by a lot of smart, effective people
who see him as the means to enact their agendas.
Its going to be a weird four years.
Next up: Jan 6
I've seen reports of planned demonstrations. Let's hope Biden ensures tight-enough security to prevent any intrusions.
And show the Republicans how a /real/ President protects critical
events.
On 2025-01-04, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Next up: Jan 6
I've seen reports of planned demonstrations. Let's hope Biden ensures
tight-enough security to prevent any intrusions.
And show the Republicans how a /real/ President protects critical
events.
Paul, as I'm sure you know from the massive statements of the Jan 6
Committee (what? They didn't publicize this? How ... strange), the
House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, had primary responsibility for
the security of all members of Congress.
Irving and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms are also in charge of the
Capitol Police, with any request for things like National Guard
support having to get approved by them before being forwarded. On
January 4th, the Capitol Police chief requested the National Guard be
put on emergency standby but Irving said no, he didn't like the way it
would look and he would have to get approval from his boss, Nancy Pelosi >(Democratic Speaker of the House). That never happened.
Pelosi on January 6th privately took responsibility for the Capitol Police >not having the resources to stop the riot.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800207258514575730?mx=2
Somehow, that was never investigated or reported by the January 6th Committee. >How...strange.
Security on January 6th was definitely looked at at the highest levels, >including in meetings with Trump. A transcript of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, includes >https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpfhtdoxi9aljwptos/file/1640163916382
“[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ‘Hey, look at
this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the
6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers
to make sure it’s a safe event.’ And [Acting SecDef] Miller
responds by saying, "Hey, we've got a plan, and we've got it
covered'"
This is the first time I've looked at some of the transcripts. They
really were considering threats, including locations and capabilities
of people like the Proud Boys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings when >talking about preparations for January 6th.
So what should a "real" president do, Paul? Do Pelosi's job for her?
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-04, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Next up: Jan 6
I've seen reports of planned demonstrations. Let's hope Biden ensures
tight-enough security to prevent any intrusions.
And show the Republicans how a /real/ President protects critical
events.
Paul, as I'm sure you know from the massive statements of the Jan 6 >>Committee (what? They didn't publicize this? How ... strange), the
House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, had primary responsibility for
the security of all members of Congress.
Irving and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms are also in charge of the
Capitol Police, with any request for things like National Guard
support having to get approved by them before being forwarded. On
January 4th, the Capitol Police chief requested the National Guard be
put on emergency standby but Irving said no, he didn't like the way it >>would look and he would have to get approval from his boss, Nancy Pelosi >>(Democratic Speaker of the House). That never happened.
Pelosi on January 6th privately took responsibility for the Capitol Police >>not having the resources to stop the riot.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800207258514575730?mx=2
Somehow, that was never investigated or reported by the January 6th Committee.
How...strange.
Security on January 6th was definitely looked at at the highest levels, >>including in meetings with Trump. A transcript of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, includes >>https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpfhtdoxi9aljwptos/file/1640163916382
“[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ‘Hey, look at
this. ThereÂ’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the
6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers
to make sure itÂ’s a safe event.Â’ And [Acting SecDef] Miller
responds by saying, "Hey, we've got a plan, and we've got it
covered'"
This is the first time I've looked at some of the transcripts. They
really were considering threats, including locations and capabilities
of people like the Proud Boys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings when >>talking about preparations for January 6th.
So what should a "real" president do, Paul? Do Pelosi's job for her?
If that's what it took.
If a State Governor can call out the National Guard to guard
something, POTUS can do ... a lot more.
And it is strange, is it not, that in all the excuses and wrangling
after Jan 6 2021 not one Republican, not even Donald Trump, /ever/
claimed that he had ordered to US Army to make sure it was a safe
event.
No, we had to find out about from a DOD IG Report -- which some
Republicans are, now that they are aware of it, claiming was an "order
from the CiC of the US Army" and threatening Milley with prosecution.
Because /any/ excuse will do when someone lies like a rug.
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-04, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Next up: Jan 6
I've seen reports of planned demonstrations. Let's hope Biden ensures
tight-enough security to prevent any intrusions.
And show the Republicans how a /real/ President protects critical
events.
Paul, as I'm sure you know from the massive statements of the Jan 6 >>>Committee (what? They didn't publicize this? How ... strange), the
House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, had primary responsibility for
the security of all members of Congress.
Irving and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms are also in charge of the
Capitol Police, with any request for things like National Guard
support having to get approved by them before being forwarded. On >>>January 4th, the Capitol Police chief requested the National Guard be
put on emergency standby but Irving said no, he didn't like the way it >>>would look and he would have to get approval from his boss, Nancy Pelosi >>>(Democratic Speaker of the House). That never happened.
Pelosi on January 6th privately took responsibility for the Capitol Police >>>not having the resources to stop the riot.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800207258514575730?mx=2
Somehow, that was never investigated or reported by the January 6th Committee.
How...strange.
Security on January 6th was definitely looked at at the highest levels, >>>including in meetings with Trump. A transcript of the Chairman of the >>>Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, includes >>>https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpfhtdoxi9aljwptos/file/1640163916382 >>> ?[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ?Hey, look at
this. There?s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the
6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers
to make sure it?s a safe event.? And [Acting SecDef] Miller
responds by saying, "Hey, we've got a plan, and we've got it
covered'"
This is the first time I've looked at some of the transcripts. They >>>really were considering threats, including locations and capabilities
of people like the Proud Boys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings when >>>talking about preparations for January 6th.
So what should a "real" president do, Paul? Do Pelosi's job for her?
If that's what it took.
You must live in a fantasy world where all riots can be predicted.
If a State Governor can call out the National Guard to guard
something, POTUS can do ... a lot more.
And it is strange, is it not, that in all the excuses and wrangling
after Jan 6 2021 not one Republican, not even Donald Trump, /ever/
claimed that he had ordered to US Army to make sure it was a safe
event.
No, we had to find out about from a DOD IG Report -- which some
Republicans are, now that they are aware of it, claiming was an "order
from the CiC of the US Army" and threatening Milley with prosecution.
Because /any/ excuse will do when someone lies like a rug.
Absolutely nobody at the time interpreted those comments as
orders. Not Trump, not the Generals present, not the Secretary of
Defense. It was just a discussion of security and Trump checking that
it was being handled properly; it turns out it wasn't. It was not his >bailiwick or responsibility to issue security orders (and it was
Pelosi's, as Speaker of the House with the Capitol Police being under
her). How exactly is it strange?
It's actually very clear that if those comments had been viewed as
orders, they would not have been obeyed, given the circumstances.
Eg, there was a major op-ed in the Washington Post on January 3rd from the >every former Secretary of Defenses saying that there was no place for >soldiers in all this commotion.
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
viewed as that. She was very explicit (privately) on January
6th. They were not going to go after the security hierarchy (which included >her) and the Capitol Police. That would merely divert attention. They
were going to go after Donald Trump himself. And so they did.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
Your attempts to shield Trump from responsibility for Jan 6 are
pathetic.
On 8 Jan 2025 15:47:03 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-04, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Next up: Jan 6
I've seen reports of planned demonstrations. Let's hope Biden ensures >>>>> tight-enough security to prevent any intrusions.
And show the Republicans how a /real/ President protects critical
events.
Paul, as I'm sure you know from the massive statements of the Jan 6 >>>>Committee (what? They didn't publicize this? How ... strange), the >>>>House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, had primary responsibility for
the security of all members of Congress.
Irving and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms are also in charge of the >>>>Capitol Police, with any request for things like National Guard
support having to get approved by them before being forwarded. On >>>>January 4th, the Capitol Police chief requested the National Guard be >>>>put on emergency standby but Irving said no, he didn't like the way it >>>>would look and he would have to get approval from his boss, Nancy Pelosi >>>>(Democratic Speaker of the House). That never happened.
Pelosi on January 6th privately took responsibility for the Capitol Police >>>>not having the resources to stop the riot.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800207258514575730?mx=2
Somehow, that was never investigated or reported by the January 6th Committee.
How...strange.
Security on January 6th was definitely looked at at the highest levels, >>>>including in meetings with Trump. A transcript of the Chairman of the >>>>Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, includes >>>>https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpfhtdoxi9aljwptos/file/1640163916382 >>>> ?[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ?Hey, look at
this. There?s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the
6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers
to make sure it?s a safe event.? And [Acting SecDef] Miller
responds by saying, "Hey, we've got a plan, and we've got it
covered'"
This is the first time I've looked at some of the transcripts. They >>>>really were considering threats, including locations and capabilities >>>>of people like the Proud Boys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings when >>>>talking about preparations for January 6th.
So what should a "real" president do, Paul? Do Pelosi's job for her?
If that's what it took.
You must live in a fantasy world where all riots can be predicted.
If a State Governor can call out the National Guard to guard
something, POTUS can do ... a lot more.
And it is strange, is it not, that in all the excuses and wrangling
after Jan 6 2021 not one Republican, not even Donald Trump, /ever/
claimed that he had ordered to US Army to make sure it was a safe
event.
No, we had to find out about from a DOD IG Report -- which some
Republicans are, now that they are aware of it, claiming was an "order
from the CiC of the US Army" and threatening Milley with prosecution.
Because /any/ excuse will do when someone lies like a rug.
Absolutely nobody at the time interpreted those comments as
orders. Not Trump, not the Generals present, not the Secretary of
Defense. It was just a discussion of security and Trump checking that
it was being handled properly; it turns out it wasn't. It was not his >>bailiwick or responsibility to issue security orders (and it was
Pelosi's, as Speaker of the House with the Capitol Police being under
her). How exactly is it strange?
Thanks for confirming that General Milley is /not/, despite Republican claims, subject to trial for not obeying the non-orders.
But POTUS /is/ responsible for everything the US Govt does. That is
what it is to be in charge.
It's actually very clear that if those comments had been viewed as
orders, they would not have been obeyed, given the circumstances.
Eg, there was a major op-ed in the Washington Post on January 3rd from the >>every former Secretary of Defenses saying that there was no place for >>soldiers in all this commotion.
Well, I would say he was wrong. Beefing up security might have made
for a more peaceful transition. And reduced the caseload of the DC
Federal Court system.
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
viewed as that. She was very explicit (privately) on January
6th. They were not going to go after the security hierarchy (which included >>her) and the Capitol Police. That would merely divert attention. They
were going to go after Donald Trump himself. And so they did.
And will continue to do, as long as Trump keeps bragging about it.
Pardoning the Jan 6 rioters will be the biggest mistake of his career. Particularly those convicted of insurrection. He will admit to being
an insurrectionist the moment he does so. Bigger even than separating families was -- and /that/ produced enough pushback from all sides to
end the policy very quickly.
On 1/8/25 08:24, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
Your attempts to shield Trump from responsibility for Jan 6 are
pathetic.
Of course they are pathetic.
Sane Republicans and Democrats agree on that.
"Moscow" Mitch McConnel stated Trump at fault
multiple times and multiple times refused the Impeachment
of the Felonius Trump for fear of losing MAGA support.
Some MAGA probably believe what they think about this
matter but the courts did not. Assaults on police officers
can be traced to Trump's words at his rally and to his
inaction when he was returned forcibly to his residence.
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
In the face of all the evidence uncovered it is
quite pathetic to attempt to shift blame for the January
6th Riot and Rebellion from Donald J Trump.
bliss
On 2025-01-08, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2025 15:47:03 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-04, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Next up: Jan 6
I've seen reports of planned demonstrations. Let's hope Biden ensures >>>>>> tight-enough security to prevent any intrusions.
And show the Republicans how a /real/ President protects critical
events.
Paul, as I'm sure you know from the massive statements of the Jan 6
Committee (what? They didn't publicize this? How ... strange), the
House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, had primary responsibility for
the security of all members of Congress.
Irving and the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms are also in charge of the
Capitol Police, with any request for things like National Guard
support having to get approved by them before being forwarded. On
January 4th, the Capitol Police chief requested the National Guard be >>>>> put on emergency standby but Irving said no, he didn't like the way it >>>>> would look and he would have to get approval from his boss, Nancy Pelosi >>>>> (Democratic Speaker of the House). That never happened.
Pelosi on January 6th privately took responsibility for the Capitol Police
not having the resources to stop the riot.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800207258514575730?mx=2
Somehow, that was never investigated or reported by the January 6th Committee.
How...strange.
Security on January 6th was definitely looked at at the highest levels, >>>>> including in meetings with Trump. A transcript of the Chairman of the >>>>> Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, includes
https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpfhtdoxi9aljwptos/file/1640163916382 >>>>> ?[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ?Hey, look at
this. There?s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the >>>>> 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers >>>>> to make sure it?s a safe event.? And [Acting SecDef] Miller
responds by saying, "Hey, we've got a plan, and we've got it
covered'"
This is the first time I've looked at some of the transcripts. They
really were considering threats, including locations and capabilities >>>>> of people like the Proud Boys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings when >>>>> talking about preparations for January 6th.
So what should a "real" president do, Paul? Do Pelosi's job for her?
If that's what it took.
You must live in a fantasy world where all riots can be predicted.
If a State Governor can call out the National Guard to guard
something, POTUS can do ... a lot more.
And it is strange, is it not, that in all the excuses and wrangling
after Jan 6 2021 not one Republican, not even Donald Trump, /ever/
claimed that he had ordered to US Army to make sure it was a safe
event.
No, we had to find out about from a DOD IG Report -- which some
Republicans are, now that they are aware of it, claiming was an "order >>>> from the CiC of the US Army" and threatening Milley with prosecution.
Because /any/ excuse will do when someone lies like a rug.
Absolutely nobody at the time interpreted those comments as
orders. Not Trump, not the Generals present, not the Secretary of
Defense. It was just a discussion of security and Trump checking that
it was being handled properly; it turns out it wasn't. It was not his
bailiwick or responsibility to issue security orders (and it was
Pelosi's, as Speaker of the House with the Capitol Police being under
her). How exactly is it strange?
Thanks for confirming that General Milley is /not/, despite Republican
claims, subject to trial for not obeying the non-orders.
So you consider the fact some Republican extremists, out of touch with reality, make a ridiculous claim means that it is a general Republican claim?? Do you really think that its perfectly all right for all the
liberal crazy falsehoods to be labeled Democratic claims?
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
On 2025-01-08, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/8/25 08:24, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
Your attempts to shield Trump from responsibility for Jan 6 are
pathetic.
Of course they are pathetic.
Sane Republicans and Democrats agree on that.
"Moscow" Mitch McConnel stated Trump at fault
multiple times and multiple times refused the Impeachment
of the Felonius Trump for fear of losing MAGA support.
Some MAGA probably believe what they think about this
matter but the courts did not. Assaults on police officers
can be traced to Trump's words at his rally and to his
inaction when he was returned forcibly to his residence.
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
In the face of all the evidence uncovered it is
quite pathetic to attempt to shift blame for the January
6th Riot and Rebellion from Donald J Trump.
bliss
So what set you off, Bliss?
I did not state or imply that Trump was blameless for January 6th.
Trump was very clearly shared in the blame.
I stated a good number of facts in my posts. I made a good number of
claims. You did not dispute a single one of those facts. You did not
dispute a single one of those claims. You called my posts "pathetic" but
you did not supply a single shred of evidence in support of your claim.
Facts matter. You presented a list of mostly unrelated unsubstantiated facts that can be discussed elsewhere. The only one related at all to the
current topic is the comment on cronies interfering with quick reaction
by the National Guard.
I assume you're talking about all the extra rules and protocols put in
place during the previous fall after the DC BLM riots? You do realize
that all those were absolutely demanded by the Democrats, don't you?
Trump massively overreacted to the White House incursion the first day
of the riots. The White House incursion was much smaller than Jan 6th
(eg, only 60 Secret Service injured as opposed to 174 Capitol Police)
and unsuccessful (some barricades were passed and the President and
family had to spend time in the Presidential bunker, but nothing
else really other than hospital visits by the Secret Service.)
Trump ordered out the National Guard and other law enforcement
resources. They arrived days later in overwhelming numbers and were
almost completely unneeded. Local and Congressional Democrats
insisted, very reasonably IMO, that this absolutely could not happen
again, and that there needed to be constraints on Trump and the entire process of invoking the National Guard.
There's no question that the new protocols delayed the arrival of
the National Guard a bit, but it wouldn't have changed the extent of the Capitol takeover much, only the duration. By the time the Capitol Police
got through their own internal bureaucracy messup and formally asked for
the National Guard, the rioters were already in substantial control of parts of the building. It still would have taken time for the National Guard to get ready and arrive.
Chris
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:04:24 -0800, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
<snippo 1/6/21 discussion>
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
Now, I am sure you meant "in addition" here, but the idea that Trump's cronies were drug addicts and under the influence at that time is ... interesting.
Most typos don't much matter. Some are amazing in unintended ways.
On 1/10/25 06:38, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2025-01-08, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/8/25 08:24, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
Your attempts to shield Trump from responsibility for Jan 6 are
pathetic.
Of course they are pathetic.
Sane Republicans and Democrats agree on that.
"Moscow" Mitch McConnel stated Trump at fault
multiple times and multiple times refused the Impeachment
of the Felonius Trump for fear of losing MAGA support.
Some MAGA probably believe what they think about this
matter but the courts did not. Assaults on police officers
can be traced to Trump's words at his rally and to his
inaction when he was returned forcibly to his residence.
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
In the face of all the evidence uncovered it is
quite pathetic to attempt to shift blame for the January
6th Riot and Rebellion from Donald J Trump.
bliss
So what set you off, Bliss?
I did not state or imply that Trump was blameless for January 6th.
Trump was very clearly shared in the blame.
I stated a good number of facts in my posts. I made a good number of
claims. You did not dispute a single one of those facts. You did not
dispute a single one of those claims. You called my posts "pathetic" but
you did not supply a single shred of evidence in support of your claim.
Facts matter. You presented a list of mostly unrelated unsubstantiated facts >> that can be discussed elsewhere. The only one related at all to the
current topic is the comment on cronies interfering with quick reaction
by the National Guard.
I assume you're talking about all the extra rules and protocols put in
place during the previous fall after the DC BLM riots? You do realize
that all those were absolutely demanded by the Democrats, don't you?
Trump massively overreacted to the White House incursion the first day
of the riots. The White House incursion was much smaller than Jan 6th
(eg, only 60 Secret Service injured as opposed to 174 Capitol Police)
and unsuccessful (some barricades were passed and the President and
family had to spend time in the Presidential bunker, but nothing
else really other than hospital visits by the Secret Service.)
Trump ordered out the National Guard and other law enforcement
resources. They arrived days later in overwhelming numbers and were
almost completely unneeded. Local and Congressional Democrats
insisted, very reasonably IMO, that this absolutely could not happen
again, and that there needed to be constraints on Trump and the entire
process of invoking the National Guard.
There's no question that the new protocols delayed the arrival of
the National Guard a bit, but it wouldn't have changed the extent of the
Capitol takeover much, only the duration. By the time the Capitol Police
got through their own internal bureaucracy messup and formally asked for
the National Guard, the rioters were already in substantial control of parts >> of the building. It still would have taken time for the National Guard to >> get ready and arrive.
Chris
By your remark you verify my assertions that defense of
Trump is pathetic. The protocols delayed nothing.
Trump sat on
his little hands while the Riotors rampaged, calling for the
immolation of the Speaker of the House and of the Vice-President
at the urging of Donald J. Trump and no other.
Nothng delayed the National Guard but the failure of
Donald J. Trump to act. No one ordered the Military to clear
out protestors a few days later for Trump to pose with a Bible
in his hand, upside down of course since he never reads anything
he cannot watch on TV. Nothing points up the non-existence or
impotence of G-d like a blaphermer misusing the holy(?) text
and not being blasted by lightening or at least struck with
boils.
On 1/10/25 06:38, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2025-01-08, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 1/8/25 08:24, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2025-01-07, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On 6 Jan 2025 16:28:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
January 6th was an epic security failure. But Pelosi did not want it
Your attempts to shield Trump from responsibility for Jan 6 are
pathetic.
Of course they are pathetic.
Sane Republicans and Democrats agree on that.
"Moscow" Mitch McConnel stated Trump at fault
multiple times and multiple times refused the Impeachment
of the Felonius Trump for fear of losing MAGA support.
Some MAGA probably believe what they think about this
matter but the courts did not. Assaults on police officers
can be traced to Trump's words at his rally and to his
inaction when he was returned forcibly to his residence.
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
In the face of all the evidence uncovered it is
quite pathetic to attempt to shift blame for the January
6th Riot and Rebellion from Donald J Trump.
bliss
So what set you off, Bliss?
I did not state or imply that Trump was blameless for January 6th.
Trump was very clearly shared in the blame.
I stated a good number of facts in my posts. I made a good number of
claims. You did not dispute a single one of those facts. You did not
dispute a single one of those claims. You called my posts "pathetic" but
you did not supply a single shred of evidence in support of your claim.
Facts matter. You presented a list of mostly unrelated unsubstantiated facts >> that can be discussed elsewhere. The only one related at all to the
current topic is the comment on cronies interfering with quick reaction
by the National Guard.
I assume you're talking about all the extra rules and protocols put in
place during the previous fall after the DC BLM riots? You do realize
that all those were absolutely demanded by the Democrats, don't you?
Trump massively overreacted to the White House incursion the first day
of the riots. The White House incursion was much smaller than Jan 6th
(eg, only 60 Secret Service injured as opposed to 174 Capitol Police)
and unsuccessful (some barricades were passed and the President and
family had to spend time in the Presidential bunker, but nothing
else really other than hospital visits by the Secret Service.)
Trump ordered out the National Guard and other law enforcement
resources. They arrived days later in overwhelming numbers and were
almost completely unneeded. Local and Congressional Democrats
insisted, very reasonably IMO, that this absolutely could not happen
again, and that there needed to be constraints on Trump and the entire
process of invoking the National Guard.
There's no question that the new protocols delayed the arrival of
the National Guard a bit, but it wouldn't have changed the extent of the
Capitol takeover much, only the duration. By the time the Capitol Police
got through their own internal bureaucracy messup and formally asked for
the National Guard, the rioters were already in substantial control of parts >> of the building. It still would have taken time for the National Guard to >> get ready and arrive.
Chris
By your remark you verify my assertions that defense of
Trump is pathetic. The protocols delayed nothing. Trump sat on
his little hands while the Riotors rampaged, calling for the
immolation of the Speaker of the House and of the Vice-President
at the urging of Donald J. Trump and no other.
Nothng delayed the National Guard but the failure of
Donald J. Trump to act. No one ordered the Military to clear
out protestors a few days later for Trump to pose with a Bible
in his hand, upside down of course since he never reads anything
he cannot watch on TV. Nothing points up the non-existence or
impotence of G-d like a blaphermer misusing the holy(?) text
and not being blasted by lightening or at least struck with
boils.
On 1/10/25 08:40, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:04:24 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
<snippo 1/6/21 discussion>
In addiction his cronies had previously interfered with
the possibility of quick reaction by the National Guard.
Now, I am sure you meant "in addition" here, but the idea that Trump's
cronies were drug addicts and under the influence at that time is ...
interesting.
Most typos don't much matter. Some are amazing in unintended ways.
No it was indeed a Typographical error and a failure
to enlarge the Text for easier reading. While #45 and his
cronies may use drugs or substances, I did not mean to imply
that they did or that it modified their response.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:22:10 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,077 |