suds

I'll check back later, and if you've got something the least bit sensible to say... I'll reply. ttfn

They could have killed every last politician in the building and not changed a thing except being charged with murder. Even if it was possible to overthrow the government at the Capitol that day, the important thing is who recognizes you as the new legitimate government. Maybe you could explain in greater detail how this could have worked out for Trump and 'his mob'. I would find it fascinating.

Again we have this repeated nonsense (more lies) of Jan 6th being an 'insurrection' or an 'attempted overthrow of government'. The Select Committee's Jan 6th report doesn't refer to it in those terms because it's totally inaccurate. Instead they use terms such as 'the attack on the United States Capitol', or 'the obstruction of the peaceful transfer of power'. The committee asks the question.... 'what if Trump's mob had succeeded in stopping us from doing our job?' I don't know, you tell me. In my opinion the protesters could have occupied every square inch of the Capitol and it would have changed absolutely nothing except delay the proceedings (which it did manage to do). US case law defines 'insurrection' as when a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government, seizing its powers, and taking possession of its inherent powers. At the very least, those involved in the takeover would have to be recognized as the new government by the military's chain of command. How likely would that be? Yet here we go again with this insurrection nonsense which even the fake news media clings on to. Trump did play a part in Jan 6, but remains for the courts to decide. Trump in my opinion is no political animal. He lacks the political smarts to weigh the consequences of his actions and is why he should never again hold office. Many like his policies but not his character or political judgement. It might be best for everyone to move on.

So you would have gunned down all of them that day??? ..... nice.

Fine, then leave it as is. But then don't whine about how long the decision making process takes with all the different levels of government and different agencies involved. It might help if you had read the section of the report that covers all this.

That's about as simple as it gets. If I've learned one thing from life it's don't be a fence-sitter. If you don't take a side, then don't expect anyone to stand up for YOU.

I guess it finally took someone like Trump to show the flaws that exist within the current system. Flaws which have the possibility of negatively affecting the decision making process. Since there's no governor for the District of Columbia, why not place the DC National Guard under the command of the Mayor of DC for all non-federal owned areas. For federal areas policed by the US Capitol Police (or other departments), command could be placed under the Speakers of the House and Senate or even possibly the US Capitol Police Board. Would you not agree that changes have to be made somewhere?

Please, everyone try and be a bit honest now. The only qualification Joe had for the job is that he wasn't Bernie Sanders.

There was no inflation during Trump's presidency. If the ugly truth about fighting inflation is that the economy must be 'destroyed' (as some might put it), then what is accomplished by adding more stimulus or increasing efficiency to now help the economy? I know that Yellen supports the bill, but i don't understand her reasoning unless the Fed's changed its priorities from fighting inflation to avoiding recession. It's not going to end well either way.

Call it whatever you want, but you're not answering my question. What does one have to do with the other??

SOME planning and preparation could have been done in advance and likely was. The thing is that both sides were against having Guardsmen on Capitol grounds. In hindsight it might have been better if the Capitol Police had requested the Guard the morning of, or the day before. How can you expect anyone to 'plan and prepare' when you have no knowledge of the situation at hand? It's not as simple as you make it sound.

Can anyone explain to me what Tom's little rant has to do with the timeline? At 1:49 pm the Capitol Police request assistance, and then shortly after 3 pm the DC National Guard are in full mobilization. Dealing with a chain of command, re-deploying the Guard from traffic duty to the Capitol, receiving/assessing advice/information from all other organizations involved, and then coming up with some sort of plan... isn't normally done by someone simply snapping their fingers. Does the timeline concerning the Guard sound unreasonable to anyone?

I'm not exactly a snowflake you know and the truth does matter to me. And i say he has to go. So much for your theories.

There is no recall mechanism for US congressmen. If he refuses to resign before getting sworn in, the House could always expel him. Article 1 Section 5 of the US constitution..... Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The powers that be want 'yes men'. Politicians that will vote the way they are told, and sign anything placed in front of them. Trump rocks the boat and creates too many waves. That's why they want him gone. But Trump's days are numbered.

Jan 6th committee report. 'DC NATIONAL GUARD PREPARATION FOR AND RESPONSE TO JANUARY 6TH'. Appendix 2 pages 724 to 750 A long read but a bit of an eye opener. Everything was optics...optics...optics... concerning the use of the DC National Guard. Even after the Capitol was breached, optics was still a topic of concern with some. Too many different branches and too many fingers in the pie. Something was bound to go wrong.

Where does it say that Trump 'directed' Christopher Miller to issue that memo??? And this thing about Miller being AWOL on Jan 6th isn't quite accurate either, at least according to the Jan 6th committee report. So where did you get that information from???

Almost all western nations are 'liberal democracies'. Not so for places like Russia or North Korea. Democracies can be seen as governments run by the people directly or by elected representatives. Some associate it with unlimited majority rule. While democracies are more likely than most other forms of government to encourage liberty (though far from certain), Liberal democracies are democracies that are constitutionally restrained especially in respect to minority and individual rights (as an added safeguard). And that's where you want to be.

There has to be a balance between 1) the rights of those to sue for being libeled and 2) the rights of a news network to carry on its business without being in constant fear of being sued or being compelled to self censor itself. Nobody can argue that those like Sidney Powell were not newsworthy when invited on Fox News even though many of the hosts at Fox didn't agree with her views. And yet, it appears that Fox is liable for what she says. It is not illegal in the US to question the validity of elections, nor should it be. Fox is no different than the other major news networks. During prime time they switch from news to 'opinionated news'. The only real difference is that Fox admits it.

I've actually done some research on this and found that many moderate republican elected officials are wary of these conventions over fear of being attacked. This includes the governor. Being written up in a party platform by no means makes it law, only a wish list. The democrats are just as nutty, except they're not stupid enough to put it in print. Does this mean that democrats are 'dishonest'? How many times have you heard of threats to democrat incumbents of being 'primaried' by the extremist left? There's also a lot of money behind this foolishness in a state where there are few restrictions on limits to the amount individuals can give in way of political contributions.

I would have to believe that moderate republican elected officials wouldn't agree with this garbage. What we have before us is a situation where both democrat and republican parties have lost their collective minds. And in a 2 party system, that aint' good.

By the end of 2023, the last of Alberta's coal-fired power plants will either be shut down or converted to natural gas (which by itself is a big improvement). The problem with wind/solar is they are intermittent sources of power generation. It has been suggested that the use of clean burning hydrogen (produced by electrolysis) be considered. The problem with electrolysis is that it uses up a lot of power. But if excess power from wind/solar, hydro-electric, or nuclear is available, it can be used for exactly that (electrolysis). Modular nuclear reactors is also another consideration for certain areas. Whatever works best for each geographic location.

If you want free trade, then do it with countries that are similar to your own in terms of living standards, politics, and environmental concerns, plus the remote possibility of ever going to war with. We should have all learned a lesson about being too dependent on the big Russian bear. Sooner or later the free world will have to deal with China. We should be getting our act together now and not falling into the same trap as our European allies. Maybe then, our manufacturing sectors could make a comeback. Things would cost more, but that's the price you pay.

What do you mean they're 'cheaper'. Does this include subsidies at federal and state levels?

The real growth in solar/wind power systems has been in 'grid connect' systems. Why? Because 'stand alone' systems are more expensive because batteries are expensive. And batteries can run out of power. If i was invested in a 'stand alone' system, I would invest further in a reliable gas generator as backup (which is exactly what they don't want you to do). I would be interested in taking a small area (of say 10,000 people) and implementing a 'stand alone' system completely based on wind, solar, and batteries. Then let's give it the test of time to see how that makes out in terms of cost, sustainability, and reliability.