I'm actually not sure I like this. Its not playing the ball. That would be impeachment and/or legal action for what he has done. Sport should be apolitical.

You can't blame anyone for not wanting to be associated with Trump right now and/or for not wanting to play a role in the perpetuation of his lies, considering their consequences.

50 police officers injured and one dead in a violent attack on the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow an election, and some people care more about Trump's Twitter account being blocked.

What will Trump's final legacy be?

Decades/centuries from now, if we're still around, how will people remember him?

I'm thinking he'll be sort of along the same lines as a Benedict Arnold.

What are you, a Donald Trump or something?!

Benedict Arnold was a hero for the British. Perspective is everything.

He doesn’t care about the game, he cares about the money and prestige. And of course sport is political. It’s America,

source?

Brands do what they think looks best for the brand, regardless of whether it was politics or something else. Trump makes lots of money from his golf courses and other properties. Inciting a riot and promoting a coup are not usually something any brand wants to be associated with.

It's not much different than when various sponsors dropped their athletes due to less-than-stellar behavior:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/24-at...090239873.html

It'll probably be akin to the legacy of Emperor Nero. Not necessarily the cause, but the symbol of decline, debauchery and degeneracy of an empire.

Incidentally, he has still 8 more days to go. When a line is drawn under his legacy, I hope it can moved a few days backwards so that the wanton damage that he and his secretary of state have unleashed recently (or are currently unleashing), to poison the environment for the incoming administration, can be partially undone.

Ive seen that the feds are sharing photos of the riot/failed coup participants online, asking for help to identify them.

Doesn't the US security apparatus have facial recognition tech.? Have these people never had an image of their face posted online before? I could understand if maybe it wasn't like in Beijing where supposedly they could find nearly anyone in the city in under an hour, but can't they just scan the web?

I think they can and do, but would like some insider tips from friends and acquaintances just in case. One of my friends is super paranoid about the deep state and such and doesn't have any photos posted on public websites that I know about. He's never been arrested, so no mug shots anywhere. He doesn't have a passport, so I don't think there's biometric data.

He has FB but never posts a pic with his face. It's always an image of his back where he's looking out at the scenery or a pic of the dog or whatever. If the FBI wanted to identify him, they'd probably need help. Then again he's a pacifist so he'd not be at such an event anyway except as a counter-protester.

In this case itseems the FBI doesn't need much help. Plenty of these individuals posted on social media before and during and their faces are all over various sites.

That's nothing fundamentally new, Deutsche has been reducing their exposure to Trump for years.

Not that long ago, maybe one year, they sold part of the debt on to some Russian entity. I believe you posted on that, and more than once.

Reminds me of this:



It's true, though, that social media is a mass surveillance system, and people feed their information right into it. They're being programmed to sacrifice their privacy in exchange for "likes" and attention, basically. People use to value their privacy, but now they value attention instead.

I read somewhere that two of the protestors were identified from their photos by their ex-wives
So even if your photos are not somewhere on the web it does not mean you are anonymous.

Watching the ITV News documentary- truly scary. And shows clearly the Police and the President knew exactly what was going to happen.Via Parler and other sites.

It is not so difficult to follow policies?
And now;
National Guardsmen protecting Capitol armed with lethal weapons.
The move is in response to fears that armed militias might attack.

I hope they all stay loyal. Usually, politicians avoid bringing armed military into their own capital cities in case they are tempted to make a takeover. The more paranoid have their own loyal military group, think the Praetorian Guard.

Not surprising
Tarnished by last week’s riot at the Capitol, Donald Trump is ending his presidency with his lowest-ever poll numbers.

A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll pegs Trump’s approval at just 34 percent, the lowest in four years of tracking opinions of the president’s job performance.

Quinnipiac University has Trump’s approval at 33%

Of course, polls are not so reliable these days.

I suspect that if you asked 100 people if they agreed with that, less than 22.5% would agree.

The US House of Representatives has just formally voted to impeach Trump for a second time. The margin was 35 votes, 232–197, with five abstentions. Seven Republicans had said that they would vote for impeachment, but in the end 10 joined the Democrats to indicate their disapproval of the President.

Those 10 Republicans were:

Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington
Rep. John Katko of New York
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington
Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois
Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan
Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming
Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio
Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina
Rep. David Valadao of California

With the unique distinction of not one, but two impeachments now under his capacious belt, Trump has cemented his position at the bottom of most analysts' rankings of US Presidents.

I think the question posed by this thread's title has been well and truly answered now.

It's too late to apologize

I'm amazed how high that figure is. It's pretty typical for a leader of a western democracy.