On our way to Biden's Inauguration (Trump #119)

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4128420-Capitol-Hill-and-the-next-2-weeks-Trump-118?watched=1&msgid=103459695#103459695

Here we are on our fast moving theads

I like to think the security would be pretty tight given the attendance list.

Sooner or later each of those people has to appear in public.

I hadn’t been aware of any salacious (lovely word!) gossip. Now I will have to look it up.

@Igotjelly

I like to think the security would be pretty tight given the attendance list.

They probably said that to JFK too.

You can only do so much. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand reads like a Mr. Bean reject script and yet we had WW1.

However doesn't every former president have their own secret service detail ? It's entirely possible the secret service will outnumber the public anyway

On the subject of former presidents, I know it's a custom for former presidents to be called "Mr. President" (and I note that I can be 100% that's the form based on the lack of female presidents ). Maybe for Trump it's a custom that could be relaxed ? After all, his term in office saw a lot of customs ditched, so he would probably approve.

[quote CaveMum]@TooTrueToBeGood I take it to be one of the more unpleasant human characteristics - winning at all costs, which has definitely seen a marked increase in recent years.

They are repeating the programme Inside Obama’s White House on BBC4 and I rewatched the first episode the other night. In it Nancy Pelosi talks about how, when Bush (W) had been President the Dems might not have agreed with him but they found ways to work to pass bills (such as an economic package tied to the 2008 financial crisis which happened shortly before Obama took over) for the good of the American people, but that as soon as Obama became President the Republicans flat out refused to work with them, hence why so many pieces of legislation were passed by small margins.

Who can say if that was rooted in racism, but I think it played a part certainly with all the “birthed” stories riling up the base.[/quote]
I remember this programme or something similar, and that the first time they went to the Republicans, the Repug said, and from memory I do my best to quote, "Oh honey. We aren't going to work with you on anything."

That has stuck in my mind.

It's party over country. Anyone engaging with the Republican party over anything needs to remember this is its MO.

(At least in the current incarnation of the GOP. Doesn't have to be like that.)

@NotaRealLawyer

Melania, if you are reading this, why not start a thread in AIBU? With a YABU / YANBU poll. I'm sure you'll get great advice. Hth.

Shall we start searching for an MN user name 'richwhingybitch'?

Blimey. Yes, my mind also leapt to "What, all those people together at the same time and place, announced in advance?"

But although it's quite a risk to take, I can also see how it's good.

Tomb of unknown soldier: speaks to folks with military background, who are the most dangerous when radicalised. Attacking the tomb itself also bad among these folks.

Multi party: Bush there too.

Still pretty worrying though. What learnt last week is that the supposedly pro Law 'n Order and pro-military folks... aren't: they're pro-cult and expect the police to obey them, not the other way round.

It's party over country. Anyone engaging with the Republican party over anything needs to remember this is its MO.

I suspect a family tree of political parties would show the GOP and Tories as having similar antecedents, However deeper comparisons fail with the GOP being the party of the industrial North vs. the Tories being the landed gentry that really look more like the Democrats and their southern landowning origins.

It's bitterly ironic that the party of Lincoln - who abolished slavery - is so in hock to racism now.

I remember this programme or something similar, and that the first time they went to the Republicans, the Repug said, and from memory I do my best to quote, "Oh honey. We aren't going to work with you on anything."

This is why it so galling that the same Republicans want the democrats to now move on and try to heal the divides, and stop talking about impeachment. The bare-faced hypocritical cheek of these people makes me want to smash things.

But although it's quite a risk to take, I can also see how it's good.

Especially as they won't feel the need to play dress up in silly outfits to try and hide their identities. Something I would hope a diligent collection (what is the collective noun here ?) of press officers would point out in not so subtle terms. With an even less subtle comparison to the Ducking Don cowering away in his midden.

"Salacious gossip" hints at a good old fashioned sex scandal.

I guess they cant hide away forever and a nice show of solidarity,especially given the cross-party representation.

This is why it so galling that the same Republicans want the democrats to now move on and try to heal the divides, and stop talking about impeachment. The bare-faced hypocritical cheek of these people makes me want to smash things.

Yeah, there is a vaguely (to a UK observer) familiar "heads we win, tails you lose" feel to it.

Stats on Twitter show that more Trump supporters watching the Arnie clip were baffled by a reference he made in it. If you know any Trumpers, you can let them know: It was a book.

Yes. Also the deceit and attempt at manipulation.

The Repugs try to influence Dem actions by spouting off that they won't find XYZ acceptable... as if they would find ABC acceptable!

It's laughable!

I just hear, "Oh honey. We aren't going to work with you on anything" in my head every time.

Once one realises that, one can move on to dealing with the Repugs with a forked stick and have no expectation the party (as distinct from honourable individuals) will do anything unless given no choice.

Repugs whining, "Oooh, we're not happy with that," is not an invitation to compromise and seek agreement; it's a demand to concede wholesale. As such, it should be ignored.

Answering my own question:

On the subject of former presidents, I know it's a custom for former presidents to be called "Mr. President" (and I note that I can be 100% that's the form based on the lack of female presidents sad). Maybe for Trump it's a custom that could be relaxed ? After all, his term in office saw a lot of customs ditched, so he would probably approve.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr.President(title)

Historically, the title was reserved for the incumbent president only, and was not to be used for former presidents, holding that it was not proper to use the title as a courtesy title when addressing a former president.[12][13][14][15][16] According to the official website of the United States of America, the correct way to address a letter is to use "The Honorable John Doe" and the correct salutation is "Mr Doe". [17] Despite that, some sources maintain that living former U.S. presidents continue to be addressed as "Mr. President", both formally and informally, and some contemporary experts on etiquette now maintain that it is entirely appropriate.[18]

Once again I can sense a chorus of people saying this would only add to his fanbases feeling of injustice. But they're going whine whatever.

“PGA can't terminate a binding contract

I'd be amazed if there wasn't a weasel clause in the contract allowing it to be terminated in certain cases.”

It seems likely there would be something in the contract about bringing the PGA into disrepute.

@merrymouse

“PGA can't terminate a binding contract

I'd be amazed if there wasn't a weasel clause in the contract allowing it to be terminated in certain cases.”

It seems likely there would be something in the contract about bringing the PGA into disrepute.

... the courts are that way Mr Trump ----->

@PerkingFaintly that’s exactly the same programme. That quote came from a Repug who an Obama aide had dated in the last. He went to her to ask for advice on getting things to work along and her reply was your (well remembered!) quote.

I saw reports on this on Twitter last night but struggled to find more info. From BBC:

"Several major US corporations announced over the weekend that they are withholding donations to lawmakers who have been blamed for stoking last week's unrest at the Capitol.

Hotel chain Marriott International pledged to withhold campaign contributions from any official "who voted against certification" of Biden's November victory. The certification process was briefly halted when rioters interrupted the session last Wednesday.

After the session continued, 147 Republican lawmakers cast votes in an attempt to throw out Biden's win.

Health insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield and financial powerhouse Citibank have also said they will stop donations to the lawmakers who objected to the US democratic process.

Bank of America, Ford Motor Co and telecoms firm AT&T have said they will consider recent events when deciding which candidate to give financial backing to in the future."

Hitting them where it hurts most - the pocket.

CSPAN live coverage of the HoR starts in about 19 minutes according to my Dish Net guide.

That would be 11am EST.

I saw reports on this on Twitter last night but struggled to find more info. From BBC: [] "Several major US corporations announced over the weekend that they are withholding donations to lawmakers who have been blamed for stoking last week's unrest at the Capitol. [] Hotel chain Marriott International pledged to withhold campaign contributions from any official "who voted against certification" of Biden's November victory. The certification process was briefly halted when rioters interrupted the session last Wednesday.

I hope there is also a counter blast to encourage non-Trumpers to actively switch to firms that reject the loony tunes representatives.

Bearing in mind that could also be classed as an "act of terrorism" if I recall what some lawmakers wanted a while back (a ban on disclosing which companies invest in which political parties ...)

Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama will all be at the Inauguration.
If anything is done to any of them
the GOP will discover quite how angry Liberals can get

Bank of America, Ford Motor Co and telecoms firm AT&T have said they will consider recent events when deciding which candidate to give financial backing to in the future."

So Ford haven't forgotten their roots then.

@ListeningQuietly

Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama will all be at the Inauguration. If anything is done to any of them the GOP will discover quite how angry Liberals can get

That would certainly be a lot of strongly worded letters.

New York state Bar Association have started an in estimation into whether to expel Rudy from its membership......good!