nauseus

Well that wasn't my point but, as you ask, it seems that by the more recent polls and approval ratings, that many of the people who did vote for Joe last time are not that confident now that they voted for the right candidate.

It's not a question of delay and interruption, it's a question of existence. Right now the American system is safe and democracy is still in place - that says a lot for its strength and popularity - it would take a lot more than a few opportunists in fancy dress to change that. If you are concerned about the confidence aspect then I would suggest taking a much closer look at your present C-in-C.

Him too. This was a small group of nutters that may or not be true Trump supporters, who never had a chance of turning American democracy over. Another full-blown civil war might do it but that's about it. No more questions please, I have an urgent meeting in the kitchen.

Pot calling.... ..

USA.

As Candide had a laugh, I will qualify by saying that any action or behaviour of one individual cannot stop any system of government, especially democracy. Now I must away to the shop.

No.

Yet another new question? If it means pleasing you I would say he certainly won't formally concede.

There is no pleasing you, is there?

Read the post upstairs and get back to me when you have time.

We are actually off topic but the CNN link lists Trump tweeting asking for peaceful behaviour again at 2:38 and 3:13 before he asks the rioters to go home in the vdo at 4:17. So to say that he did nothing is at least misleading. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/10/politics/jan-6-us-capitol-riot-timeline/index.html

There was a point in all that?

If you choose to assume then there'll be a good chance you are wrong.

Simple maybe but true?

Yes, well, I have not exempted anyone.

I don't think so Mac. The only excuse I've seen so far is "optics" (in that it wouldn't look good for the vote counting ceremonials),

I've just said what I think to Placeholder but hear this: Trump should have tried to call the mob out of the Capitol as soon as he was back at the WH. He was way too late - I don't know if he was waiting to see any outcome. If this was a planned violent attempt to prevent the certification of the election and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power then I do not support that. However, I think that this whole day was an out of control sequence of events and that the opportunist rioters (not that many of of such a big crowd overall and not patriots) took advantage of the poor Capitol security staffing to break in and rampage. There were warnings, that even Cheyney was clear in describing, but no one wants to say why they were seemingly ignored. .

Why couldn't you give me a straight answer the first time? It saves angst. To answer your question, I don't know what Trump did once he got to the WH but whatever it was he took far too long to appeal for the mob element to stop. I've already said that by not conceding the election much earlier and just handing over, I think that Trump has damaged himself so much that I don't think he'll run again. But it looks like my post has been removed. The National Guard/security question is a mystery still, as everything I read seems to conflict or lacks detail on who did what and when. What is evident is that the police were undermanned and unprepared on the day, despite warnings of possible trouble days beforehand. It seems that Pence requested the NG after the fact but I cant find the truth about any action by Trump, before or on Jan 6th, Capitol security arrangements are not normally the president's responsibility, so others need to step up and explain this poor planning.

Look at this - your first reply was in italics: Trump said a lot of things. But when the rioters invaded the Capitol he did nothing. To your way of thinking what speaks louder action (or in this case inaction) or words? The only clear thing I saw in that was that you wanted to evade answering my question and change the question to yours. Now if you can't answer, why should I? Irony my boot.

Why would I comment on a diversionary reply? As soon as Trump's word "peacefully" is mentioned then that is smothered in your hope that this quote will go away as fast as possible. This been similarly omitted/edited out and ignored by this hearing and you want to do the same. I'm no disciple of Trump but I would like to see balance instead of this charade of a hearing and hope that anything in Georgia is handled much better.

You divert immediately. Tell someone else.

A diverse number? What is that?

You mean that leaky tanker?

Right. So overall it is great then?

Forty or porky?