Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[Ziggy Stardust]

No one told them to go to the job interview.

... are you kidding?

[Solauren]

In theory the searching and pointing out should be enough if the profile picture is clearly you. I might be persuaded to pull it up on my phone and show, but I won't let anyone else touch my phone, and I sure as hell won't use one of their devices!

That's actually reasonable (not letting them touch it or using one of their devices).

[Ralin]

No one told them to go to the job interview.

... are you kidding?

Look, they made it clear they weren't hiring black applicants. Why would they come to the interview knowing that?

[Broomstick]

It's illegal to discriminate against people due to race/ethnic origin so you might want a stab at a different example.

[Ralin]

It's illegal to discriminate against people due to race/ethnic origin so you might want a stab at a different example.

Given that the implied message here is that it shouldn't be legal for employers to do this either outside of maybe some specific exceptions I feel you are missing the point.

[LadyTevar]

Biden Inauguration leaves QAnon in disarray

Followers of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory are divided after Joe Biden's inauguration confounded their predictions that Donald Trump would remain president in order to punish his enemies in the "deep state".

Many reacted with shock and despair as Joe Biden was sworn in as the 46th US president.

"I just want to throw up," said one in a popular chat on the Telegram messaging app. "I'm so sick of all the disinformation and false hope."

Others insisted "the plan" had not failed, finding new theories to latch on to.

For weeks, QAnon followers had been promoting 20 January as a day of reckoning, when prominent Democrats and other elite "Satanic paedophiles" would be arrested and executed on the orders of President Trump.

But, as Mr Biden took his oath and no arrests were made, some in the QAnon community had an uncomfortable meeting with reality.

"It's done and we were played," wrote another.

In the hours that followed, thousands more made similar comments on platforms like Gab, Telegram and other online forums where believers go to discuss the conspiracy, after being kicked off mainstream social media in the wake of the Capitol riots.

Doubt even seeped into posts by some of the biggest influencers of the movement, as some started to question the phrase "Trust the plan" - a key QAnon slogan that has been used by "Q", an anonymous figure whom followers believe to be an influential government insider.

"This is a very difficult day for all of us," said one influencer whose Twitter account with 200,000 followers was recently suspended.

"Today's inauguration makes no sense to the Christian patriots and we thought 'the plan' was the way we would take this country back."

One woman whose husband is a QAnon follower told the BBC that inauguration day had been "the most disappointing" of his life.

She's hopeful Wednesday's events may have shaken his faith in the conspiracy, but fears what comes next.

"I'm not a told-you-so kind of person and never seek to belittle or humiliate," she said, adding that his beliefs had put a strain on their marriage in recent months.

The QAnon community "risks fracturing", said another influencer on Gab, a right-wing social media platform, adding that "real friendships might be irreparably damaged because people are angry".

The widely accepted belief within the movement was that at some point before Joe Biden stepped on the stage to take the presidential oath, members of the military - on the orders of Mr Trump - would intervene to arrest Mr Biden and his wife along with Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Barack and Michelle Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, George and Laura Bush and other members of "the deep state".

A number of extremist and neo-Nazi Telegram channels have already tried to capitalise on the chaos in the QAnon community, asking their members to seek out and convert distraught followers.

Some influential accounts told followers to keep the faith and not give up so easily.

One popular Telegram channel reassured its 130,000 subscribers that Mr Trump and the "Q" team were still in control behind the scenes, and the "evil deeds" of the deep state would be exposed "over the next four years".

Some doubled down, criticising those who in their view had rushed to judgement.

One claimed Mr Biden was running his administration as an inmate inside a military compound, but he "doesn't know it yet".

Later in the day, Ron Watkins, one of the most influential figures in the QAnon community, called on his followers to move on - to the surprise of many observers.

The son of Jim Watkins, the man behind 8chan and 8kun - message boards filled with extreme language and views, violence and extreme sexual content on which "Q" posts - the younger Watkins has been one of the main purveyors of election conspiracies and played a vital role in encouraging some QAnon supporters to gather in Washington DC on 6 January.

"We gave it our all," he said to his 120,000 subscribers on Telegram.

"Now we need to keep our chins up and go back to our lives as best we are able."

As inauguration day drew to a close, QAnon communities were still filled with mixed emotions.

Some said they were waiting for "Q", who has been largely silent since election day, to post as they had so many unanswered questions.

And some expressed hope that Mr Trump would communicate directly with them soon.

A considerable chunk of the community remains steadfast in their belief, urging one another to remain patient and keep the faith.

It is difficult to predict where the movement goes from here.

But some experts and researchers think that QAnon, which has successfully duped hundreds of thousands of followers into thinking they alone could stop a global cabal of criminals ruling the world, will not simply vanish overnight.

Followers "will likely remain a threat until they can exit the QAnon space", tweeted extremism researcher Marc-Andre Argentino.

"Even without QAnon, without 'Q', without Trump, the core elements that lead these individuals to believe in QAnon will still remain and they will need to find outlets for their conspiratorial mindsets and their anti-democratic ideals," he added.

[Batman]

Einstein sure was right about the 'stupidity' thing

[Solauren]

Since there seems to be some confusion, let me clarify/clean up what I'm trying (and probably badly) to say.

Most jobs with security requirements, especially government jobs, require background checks.
(Examples I can think of off hand include any Provincal and Federal Job I've held, or known someone that worked at, Law Enforcement, and Educators)
I have also never heard of one being offered without their being an interview as part of the hiring proceedure.

So, with that in mind...

I have no problem with
.. Background check extending to reviewing someone's activity on social media.
.. Background checks extending to requesting that someone bring their cell phone in to show their social media.
(Provided they are told this when they are called in for an interview.).
(or if they don't own a cellphone/smart phone, like myself, emailing links to their profiles)

. . with an employeer telling a potiental employee that social media activity may be monitored if they are hired.
(I expect that notification to be included in any employement papers).

= = =
I DO have a problem with...
- Employers asking employees/applicant to hand over the employee/applicant's unlocked cellphones
- Employers asking employees/applicant to access the employee/applicant's social media using provided equipment.

- Employers looking into someone's private correspondance, including Direct/Private message on Social Media.
(Note: If you're stupid enough to access your social media using your employeers tech, which they have the right to monitor the use of, that's your own problem).

- Employers ordering Employees to allow them access to private social media accounts, either via friend requests or making a private/restricted social media account public.

= = =
Now, think about it for a moment.
Being told about the social media review, when offered a interview, gives the applicant the option of going 'no, I don't want this job if that is required of me'.

Being told about the social media monitoring prior to accepting a position, again, gives the applicant the option of going 'no, I don't want this job if that is required of me'.

I agree, it would be a 'civil', move tell someone both of these are going to happen when offering them an interview.

[Solauren]

Biden Inauguration leaves QAnon in disarray
(Snipped)

So, basically, they all believed in Trump, the way people believed the 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' moral panic in the 1980s, combined with a cult-like figure head, leading them to 'the promised land', that was feeding their delusions?

WOW.

[Gandalf]

Most jobs with security requirements, especially government jobs, require background checks.
(Examples I can think of off hand include any Provincal and Federal Job I've held, or known someone that worked at, Law Enforcement, and Educators)
I have also never heard of one being offered without their being an interview as part of the hiring proceedure.

It can also be jobs with any vague concept of a reputational risk. A friend of mine had that issue when applying to work for a TV network, and his social media history showed a lot of unsavoury commentary on said network. Needless to say, he didn't get the job.

[Broomstick]

Biden Inauguration leaves QAnon in disarray

The latest Q-nonsense I heard was that one of them latched on to March 4 being the original inauguration day and THAT will be the day the "deep state" is finally arrested/ended and the One True President will take the oath of office.



Give it up, people. You were lied to.

[Lord Revan]

Biden Inauguration leaves QAnon in disarray

The latest Q-nonsense I heard was that one of them latched on to March 4 being the original inauguration day and THAT will be the day the "deep state" is finally arrested/ended and the One True President will take the oath of office.



Give it up, people. You were lied to.

The sad thing is that these people will probably never give up as to them the idea they could be wrong or that world works differently then they think is simply unthinkable, best we can hope that these people fade away along with Trump so that they're as relevant as the those screaming how the sky is falling on the streets.

[Solauren]

The Q-Annon followers are basically a combination of culists and conspiracy theorists.

They believe because the want to believe, or because they think it makes them smarter then everyone else. They're all just waiting/hoping for vindication.

In short, they're all pretty damn sad individuals.

[Broomstick]

Yeah.

Often heavily armed sad individuals, many of whom participated in an insurrection/riot/uprising on January 6th.

Sad or not, they are potentially dangerous.

[Raw Shark]

Often heavily armed sad individuals, many of whom participated in an insurrection/riot/uprising on January 6th.

Them Satanic pizza parlors ain't gonna shoot up themselves y'know.

[Solauren]

Sad or not, they are potentially dangerous.

True, but hopefully they'll drift away from Trumpism/Q-Anon crap, into something that is less damaging for the rest of us if they become involved in.

And I hope they don't shoot up satanic pizza joints. They're the only ones that will put anchovies, mushrooms, and olives on pizza at the same time.

[Raw Shark]

And I hope they don't shoot up satanic pizza joints.

You're four years too late.

They're the only ones that will put anchovies, mushrooms, and olives on pizza at the same time.

Fake news! Unless all the places I have ordered that combo were secretly temples of doom, of course.

[Solauren]

They're the only ones that will put anchovies, mushrooms, and olives on pizza at the same time.

Fake news! Unless all the places I have ordered that combo were secretly temples of doom, of course.

You'll find all the best pizza joints are actually Temples of Doom.

[LaCroix]

Fun fact that noone ever offers a maximum age for politicians...
We agree that people should not be running for office until they are like 35. So they need 17 years of adolescent experience.

By the same rationale, we should take the 76 average lifespan and add the maximum age of 59 to the voting laws. On your 60th birthday, you lose the right to run for an office. You can serve your term, or have to retire by the end of the year in case of lifetime appointments...

TbH we are talking about people who want to decide the future of a country, but at home their kids have to tape the remote control buttons and stuff because the modern life is too complicated. People who boast to never have sent an email in their life and don't know the easiest parts of modern life and technology. People wondering why the young can't afford to buy houses or pay for school, because back then, they also managed to do so, and with ease...

Life experience is a must have - but at a certain point, your life experience becomes outdated and irrelevant.

[Broomstick]

Fun fact that noone ever offers a maximum age for politicians...
We agree that people should not be running for office until they are like 35. So they need 17 years of adolescent experience.

By the same rationale, we should take the 76 average lifespan and add the maximum age of 59 to the voting laws. On your 60th birthday, you lose the right to run for an office. You can serve your term, or have to retire by the end of the year in case of lifetime appointments...

60 is too young. Hell, we don't even make airline pilots retire at 60 any more. 76 is the average overall lifespan, but someone at age 60 in the US is likely to make it to 80. Let's make the cut-off 70, after which you run out your current term. Life time appointees retire at 80.

TbH we are talking about people who want to decide the future of a country, but at home their kids have to tape the remote control buttons and stuff because the modern life is too complicated. People who boast to never have sent an email in their life and don't know the easiest parts of modern life and technology. People wondering why the young can't afford to buy houses or pay for school, because back then, they also managed to do so, and with ease...

Do you realize how close I am to 60? And I'm on line, I keep learning about new stuff, I keep adapting to the changing world. Your insinuation that someone 60 is inherently outdated and obsolete, incapable of learning, is frankly ageist.

[LaCroix]

Fun fact that noone ever offers a maximum age for politicians...
We agree that people should not be running for office until they are like 35. So they need 17 years of adolescent experience.

By the same rationale, we should take the 76 average lifespan and add the maximum age of 59 to the voting laws. On your 60th birthday, you lose the right to run for an office. You can serve your term, or have to retire by the end of the year in case of lifetime appointments...

60 is too young. Hell, we don't even make airline pilots retire at 60 any more. 76 is the average overall lifespan, but someone at age 60 in the US is likely to make it to 80. Let's make the cut-off 70, after which you run out your current term. Life time appointees retire at 80.

TbH we are talking about people who want to decide the future of a country, but at home their kids have to tape the remote control buttons and stuff because the modern life is too complicated. People who boast to never have sent an email in their life and don't know the easiest parts of modern life and technology. People wondering why the young can't afford to buy houses or pay for school, because back then, they also managed to do so, and with ease...

Do you realize how close I am to 60? And I'm on line, I keep learning about new stuff, I keep adapting to the changing world. Your insinuation that someone 60 is inherently outdated and obsolete, incapable of learning, is frankly ageist.

And here, everybody retires at 60-65... This late retirement in the US has more to do with social security than anything else - and frankly - a pilot's experience does not get worse over time. Then make it 70, I just made an attempt to balance for fairness' sake. And to introduce a low-yield term limit.

And yeah - you may be the exception. Nice. Good for you. There also are people 20 years old who are capable to fill a political office properly - I do not see anyone making an argument that there should be exceptions for these. Cut-off ages are like that.

[Gandalf]

Fun fact that noone ever offers a maximum age for politicians...
We agree that people should not be running for office until they are like 35. So they need 17 years of adolescent experience.

By the same rationale, we should take the 76 average lifespan and add the maximum age of 59 to the voting laws. On your 60th birthday, you lose the right to run for an office. You can serve your term, or have to retire by the end of the year in case of lifetime appointments...

TbH we are talking about people who want to decide the future of a country, but at home their kids have to tape the remote control buttons and stuff because the modern life is too complicated. People who boast to never have sent an email in their life and don't know the easiest parts of modern life and technology. People wondering why the young can't afford to buy houses or pay for school, because back then, they also managed to do so, and with ease...

Life experience is a must have - but at a certain point, your life experience becomes outdated and irrelevant.

Weird. Here in Australia the line is 18 years old. We had a PM in the nineties who became an MP at 25, and wasn't that bad.

The upper age limit is interesting though, would it apply to voting too?

[LaCroix]

Fun fact that noone ever offers a maximum age for politicians...
We agree that people should not be running for office until they are like 35. So they need 17 years of adolescent experience.

By the same rationale, we should take the 76 average lifespan and add the maximum age of 59 to the voting laws. On your 60th birthday, you lose the right to run for an office. You can serve your term, or have to retire by the end of the year in case of lifetime appointments...

TbH we are talking about people who want to decide the future of a country, but at home their kids have to tape the remote control buttons and stuff because the modern life is too complicated. People who boast to never have sent an email in their life and don't know the easiest parts of modern life and technology. People wondering why the young can't afford to buy houses or pay for school, because back then, they also managed to do so, and with ease...

Life experience is a must have - but at a certain point, your life experience becomes outdated and irrelevant.

Weird. Here in Australia the line is 18 years old. We had a PM in the nineties who became an MP at 25, and wasn't that bad.

The upper age limit is interesting though, would it apply to voting too?

I do not think it should apply to voting - in general, we allow all adults to vote - it is just that I believe (and see this in action every day) that while people may be to immature to be elected to office under a certain age, it also is the case that you can be too old to be allowed to.

Pretty much because most people get into the "I'm older than you, so I know better... Back in my days..." phase somewhere down in their late fifties and sixties. It is a well studied phenomenon that people get more conservative and afraid of change in their older days. And as such, they should make way for the younger generation who actually understand the world as it is right now. Yes, you could try and vote them out for a younger contender, but sadly, the political establishment (party politics) tends to fight tooth and nail to keep people in office for life once elected, and nobody wants to step down from power voluntarily. So replacement usually has to wait until the official dies, just to be replaced by someone only slightly younger (party nominee, again)...

Just look into any political assembly and tell me if the age curve does not rather resemble a care home than the actual population.

[Rogue 9]

Point of fact: 35 is the minimum to run for President of the United States; one can run for the House at 25 and the Senate at 30.

[Ralin]

And many would agree that is neither fair nor just, but amending the Constitution is hard and no one is sufficiently motivated to do so in this case.