Trump declares himself Emperor - his supporters storm the Capitol!

[DoctorStrangelove]

Didn't realise Stalin was a democratically elected leader

99.9% of the vote.

The other 0.1% were in the gulag.

[vetran]

Actually Littlejohn raises a few good points

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Those shocking scenes on Capitol Hill? A very British coup... | Daily Mail Online

Be in no doubt, what we witnessed yesterday . . . was nothing less than an attempted coup.' No, not this week's violent invasion of the Capitol Building in Washington.That sentence was the introduction to this column on May 12, 2010, as Gordon Brown clung to office in a last-ditch attempt to stop David Cameron becoming Prime Minister.
So before we get too self-righteous over the outrageous attempts by Donald Trump and his supporters to overturn democracy in America, let's not kid ourselves that it could never happen here.

In May 2010, five days after Britain resoundingly rejected Labour at the ballot box, I wrote: 'Gordon Brown is trying to steal the outcome of last week's General Election, which he lost by a margin of two million votes and 60 seats.'Brown simply refused to accept the result. In a desperate attempt to stop the Tories forming a government he offered the Lib Dems a deal which would involve him remaining Prime Minister until the Labour conference that autumn. After which, of course, there was nothing to stop him standing again.
Labour's very own Proud Boys, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, were given free rein on the airwaves to claim the Tories had actually lost the election and what the people had really voted for was a 'progressive alliance' between parties of the Left. The BBC was only too happy to perpetuate this scandalous perversion of the truth.
Yes, David Cameron's party had fallen a whisker short of an overall majority. But the Tories had won 306 seats to Labour's 258 — and even with Lib Dem support Brown still wouldn't have been able to command a majority.
In the event, Brown had to be dragged out of Downing Street, clinging on by what was left of his fingernails, when Nick Clegg's Lib Dems declined to play ball and opted to go into coalition with the Tories.

Brown urged to quit | The Sunday Times

Gordon Brown was last night facing a growing cabinet revolt over his refusal to leave Downing Street. The prime minister is under pressure from senior ministers to quit and allow Labour to go into opposition with the prospect of another election within a year.

[fullyautomatix]

That is absolute nonsense! No party got a majority and so a coalition was the only solution. Just like how Tories formed it with Lib Dems, Labour had a similar opportunity to do so if Lib Dems preferred Labour as a partner. Everything by the book and in no way comparable to Trump claiming fraudulent voting and trying to stay in power.

[Old Greg]

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Those shocking scenes on Capitol Hill? A very British coup... | Daily Mail Online






Brown urged to quit | The Sunday Times

It was an odd time when Brown wouldn't face reality for too long, but constitutionally, where no party wins a majority, the sitting PM is entitled to stay in office after an election while trying to form a majority. The PM is PM through having the confidence of the HoC. It's a poor comparison to make with the US President, who is President by virtue of the votes of the Electoral College (notwithstanding 25th Amendment exceptional circumstances).

But then, Littlejohn is a cock.

[darmstadt]

That is absolute nonsense! No party got a majority and so a coalition was the only solution. Just like how Tories formed it with Lib Dems, Labour had a similar opportunity to do so if Lib Dems preferred Labour as a partner. Everything by the book and in no way comparable to Trump claiming fraudulent voting and trying to stay in power.

No, no. It was written by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail so it must be gospel...

[vetran]

Iraq is sending troops to America to help restore democracy.

[Whorty]

Zuckerberg personally banning Trump is dangerous
Social Media Giants having the power to ban the president is a dangerous precedent
Especially when there is so much obvious incitement and hatred across social media.
Same with You Tube banning Talk Radio - an ofcom regulated station.
Social controlling the narrative.

These are private companies. Like any private company they have the right to ban members. CUK does it too. As do real bricks and mortar companies. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The issue that I see with social media platforms is the public think they own these, they are public service platforms and hence people can say whatever they like with impunity. It's not the case. Each company has it's rules, within the law and rules of the country (s) they operate in.

Nothing to do with social control of narrative - you want to start a social network and allow all manner of false and dangerous narrative to be spouted on there, then feel free. No one is stopping you.

So long as the social media platforms operate within the law, then all is good.

[darmstadt]

The best one so far, BTW, the little guy on the right is a few braincells short. You'll notice he has his work ID card hanging from a lanyard around his neck. He's now been sacked...

[Whorty]

That is absolute nonsense! No party got a majority and so a coalition was the only solution. Just like how Tories formed it with Lib Dems, Labour had a similar opportunity to do so if Lib Dems preferred Labour as a partner. Everything by the book and in no way comparable to Trump claiming fraudulent voting and trying to stay in power.

I personally didn't value Brown as PM (or Chancellor), and have never voted Labour, but even so as sitting PM when there is no majority he had every right to try and form a coalition with the Lib Dems .... so I agree with you (ooooh, that hurt) absolutely nothing wrong with Brown's attempt to stay on as PM.

Trump however is a dangerous twunt.

[DaveB]