Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[sackett]

It was a coward's coup. When it fizzled, Benito suddenly didn't know a thing about it. He still doesn't. Neither do his dwindling club of kass issers.

Why is there so much chicken **** than there are chickens?

 

[Thermal]

Because it is accurate in all senses of the word.

That is your repeated bald assertion. Repetition does not increase credibility.

You're best argument against it is that they failed, which is not a requirement.

If you really believe this, you are simply refusing to read my posts and are arguing with your imagination. Can't help you there.

We could backslide to argumentum ad thesaurus again? That was some pretty sophisticatd debate.

 

[Upchurch]

If you really believe this, you are simply refusing to read my posts and are arguing with your imagination. Can't help you there.

I said your best argument, not your only argument. Your other arguments were worse and ignored all sense of context of everything else that was going on before and during that day. If you're interested in stubbornness, go take another look at your posts.

 

[Thermal]

I said your best argument, not your only argument. Your other arguments were worse and ignored all sense of context of everything else that was going on before and during that day. If you're interested in stubbornness, go take another look at your posts.

LOL, you're priceless. That it failed is not any part of my arguments. At all.

You literally made that up out of whole cloth. You'd be embarrassed as hell if you had the wit.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

LOL, you're priceless. That it failed is not any part of my arguments. At all.

You literally made that up out of whole cloth. You'd be embarrassed as hell if you had the wit.

Can we agree it was Conspiracy to commit a Coup now that your defense of it has failed?

 

[Upchurch]

LOL, you're priceless. That it failed is not any part of my arguments. At all.

You literally made that up out of whole cloth. You'd be embarrassed as hell if you had the wit.

Oh, yes. You're argument is that they didn't follow through. (which is true) They didn't actually do anything. (which is not true)

What you're missing is that they did do something and it did further the overall goal of preventing the certification of the vote. I call it a "fail" because they ultimately only delayed the certification. Trump eventually called them off because his plausible deniability was coming to an end.

 

[Thermal]

Can we agree it was Conspiracy to commit a Coup now that your defense of it has failed?

Oh god another one.

Nothing failed on this end. Unless you think baldly asserting over and over that it was totally a coup/attempt is an argumentative victory? Argumentum ad broken recordium ftw.

Christ, at it's most basic, fundamental level, it could not even be a coup. Trump was still in power. Even a lame duck on the outgo is still in the driver's seat till the inauguration of the President-elect. We need a new term for self-couping if you are going to insist on that angle.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh god another one.

Nothing failed on this end. Unless you think baldly asserting over and over that it was totally a coup/attempt is an argumentative victory? Argumentum ad broken recordium ftw.

Christ, at it's most basic, fundamental level, it could not even be a coup. Trump was still in power. Even a lame duck on the outgo is still in the driver's seat till the inauguration of the President-elect. We need a new term for self-couping if you are going to insist on that angle.

Actually Trumpsters powers were limited by the Constitution which he tried to over Throw, that is the whole reason for the Coup, to overthrow the actual Constitutionial government.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh god another one.

Nothing failed on this end. Unless you think baldly asserting over and over that it was totally a coup/attempt is an argumentative victory? Argumentum ad broken recordium ftw.

Christ, at it's most basic, fundamental level, it could not even be a coup. Trump was still in power. Even a lame duck on the outgo is still in the driver's seat till the inauguration of the President-elect. We need a new term for self-couping if you are going to insist on that angle.

I and many others here are looking at it as a coup against the Constitution, Rule of Law, and the peaceful transfer of power.

 

[Upchurch]

Christ, at it's most basic, fundamental level, it could not even be a coup. Trump was still in power. Even a lame duck on the outgo is still in the driver's seat till the inauguration of the President-elect. We need a new term for self-couping if you are going to insist on that angle.

Okay, I think I see the problem.

See, the US Government is made up of 3 coequal branches: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. Now, despite what you might have heard, the President (from the Executive Branch) does not actually hold all the power. Congress (from the Legislative Branch) was in the process of removing Executive power from Trump on January 6 and the courts (from the Judicial Branch) were preventing Trump from stopping that process through legal means. These are crucial facts in understanding how Trump was never "in the driver's seat" and was, in fact, on his way out of his third of the driver's seat.

The January 6th insurrection was a part of Trump's plan to prevent Congress from performing their constitutional duty and overthrowing a legitimate democratic election. In other words, Trump was attempting to overthrow the powers and responsibilities of the other two branches of US Government.

Does that help?

 

[Thermal]

Oh, yes. You're argument is that they didn't follow through. (which is true) They didn't actually do anything. (which is not true)

Please try that reading thing again. Try a little harder maybe.

What you're missing is that they did do something and it did further the overall goal of preventing the certification of the vote. I call it a "fail" because they ultimately only delayed the certification.Trump eventually called them off because his plausible deniability was coming to an end.

I have recently been roundly reprimanded that Trump in fact did no such thing. I expect said reprimanders to be harshly chastising you shortly.

And seriously, man. I don't mind an argument or debate, but if you spent less time snipping out posts and more time actually reading the ******* things, your arguments wouldn't be quite so coup-coup.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, I think I see the problem.

See, the US Government is made up of 3 coequal branches: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. Now, despite what you might have heard, the President (from the Executive Branch) does not actually hold all the power. Congress (from the Legislative Branch) was in the process of removing Executive power from Trump on January 6 and the courts (from the Judicial Branch) were preventing Trump from stopping that process through legal means. These are crucial facts in understanding how Trump was never "in the driver's seat" and was, in fact, on his way out of his third of the driver's seat.

The January 6th insurrection was a part of Trump's plan to prevent Congress from performing their constitutional duty and overthrowing a legitimate democratic election. In other words, Trump was attempting to overthrow the powers and responsibilities of the other two branches of US Government.

Does that help?

It does. You have clarified that your argument is far more stupid than I realized. For that, I apologize.

So you think that Trump was not merely trying to stay in the Oval Office by denying the election results, as we normies think. You literally, soberly think he was trying to institute himself as some sort of dictator or Emperor or something?

 

[tyr_13]

Oh god another one.

Nothing failed on this end. Unless you think baldly asserting over and over that it was totally a coup/attempt is an argumentative victory? Argumentum ad broken recordium ftw.

Christ, at it's most basic, fundamental level, it could not even be a coup. Trump was still in power. Even a lame duck on the outgo is still in the driver's seat till the inauguration of the President-elect. We need a new term for self-couping if you are going to insist on that angle.

You keep coming up with conditions for a coup that are just nonsense. Coup is the correct term and you putting conditions on it being a 'coup coup' attempt or 'legitimate coup' attempt isn't a valid argument.

A president attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is still a coup. It's still illegally seizing government power that doesn't belong to him.

All your arguments being wrong, and many wrong and invalid, isn't the fault of everyone else pointing it out. Repeating the parts that prove you wrong isn't fallacious or bad faith. It doesn't matter that you're also against the coup attempt but just want to call it something else. None of that matters to the truth of your arguments.

 

[varwoche]

You, like others, continue to Beg the Question. Back atcha, to give you a taste: you are a Lizard People Denier. Why do you deconstruct the fact of the Lizard People who run the world?

You're changing the subject using a dog awful analogy.

We all agree on the profoundly unAmerican actions of the ex-President and the J6ers. I have opined that we should be building new prisons to house them for their long-term stays, and in fact, I have been harsher on them than many here in insisting that the Feds et al should not be accepting plea bargains, as this is an unprecedented matter of principle that we should fund the prosecution of to the fullest extent of the law.

Acknowledged.

You and others here don't seem remotely interested in any of that. It's just using the word "coup" that has your knickers in a twist and has you arguing page after page. Why is that? Why is using the word "coup" so important to you, to the point of eclipsing the meat of the argument?

Funny, I feel similarly when I read your comments. Although I don't jump to conclusions about your mental state, nor do I get on a high horse about skepticism, nor would I fail to acknowledge if my main argument was debunked.

 

[tyr_13]

that Trump was not merely trying to stay in the Oval Office by denying the election results,

Stop. This right here is a coup attempt. It is taking governmental power illegally. If you think that's what Trump was trying to do, then you admit it was a coup attempt.

It doesn't matter why you're engaged in the weird doublethink, but that's what it is.

 

[Upchurch]

It does. You have clarified that your argument is far more stupid than I realized. For that, I apologize.

So you think that Trump was not merely trying to stay in the Oval Office by denying the election results, as we normies think. You literally, soberly think he was trying to institute himself as some sort of dictator or Emperor or something?

I said he was trying to overthrow the results of a legitimate election. To do that, you necessarily have to overcome the checks and balances of the Congress and the courts, do you not?

What did you think he was doing?

 

[Thermal]

I and many others here are looking at it as a coup against the Constitution, Rule of Law, and the peaceful transfer of power.

Yeah, I get that. And it's not what a cou[p d'etat *is*. You are appropriating the term for something else entirely. That's what we have been talking about for Lo these many pages.

 

[Thermal]

I said he was trying to overthrow the results of a legitimate election. To do that, you necessarily have to overcome the checks and balances of the Congress and the courts, do you not?
What did you think he was doing?

Of course not! You seize the ******* power undemocratically.

That's what a coup is at it's most elementary. It's illegal. it is undemocratic. It is a seizing or wresting of power, not a ******* legal argument that it is not even theoretically possible to win!

I'm sorry man, I can't do this. I don't come into USA Pol often because of dickhead arguments like this. See ya on some other thread.

 

[Upchurch]

I and many others here are looking at it as a coup against the Constitution, Rule of Law, and the peaceful transfer of power.

Yeah, I get that. And it's not what a cou[p d'etat *is*. You are appropriating the term for something else entirely. That's what we have been talking about for Lo these many pages.

That is precisely what what a coup d'etat is.

A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/); French for "blow of state"), usually shortened to coup, (also known as an overthrow) is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers.​

What on Earth have you convinced yourself that a "coup" means?

 

[Upchurch]

Of course not! You seize the ******* power undemocratically.

That's what a coup is at it's most elementary. It's illegal. it is undemocratic. It is a seizing or wresting of power, not a ******* legal argument that it is not even theoretically possible to win!

That. Is. What. He. Is. Doing.