Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[Thermal]

Pray tell, my dear Gazanga; describe for us ex-President Trump's remaining in power illegally and being forced out of office. I'm sure all would relish the tale.

 

[Paul2]

That's what you call a seizure of power? Seriously?

If one interrupts a judge when he is speaking, have you seized judicial powers?

Not every interruption may be a seizure, but that doesn't mean that no interruption can be a seizure.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Pray tell, my dear Gazanga; describe for us ex-President Trump's remaining in power illegally and being forced out of office. I'm sure all would relish the tale.

That's not the question of whether it was a coup attempt or not.

If you try to kill someone incompetently, you still committed attempted murder.
Suffice that Trump's legal counsel set up the plan and believed it would work, whilst the Capitol was being stormed.

 

[tyr_13]

No. For the umpteenth time, *NO*. My argument has clearly been that they did not attempt to do *anything* in terms of seizing power.

But that's not what your words mean. They DID attempt to seize power. The storming was part of that attempt. You can say it wasn't, but you're factually wrong. You wish to pretend that violently attacking the Capitol to stop the certification doesn't count, but there is zero, absolutely zero reason it doesn't. You claim you're not saying it doesn't count because it wasn't successful, but that's exactly what you're arguing when you say they didn't seize power. Obviously.

They attempted nothing of the kind. The J6ers disrupted the certification temporarily.

This makes your criteria their lack of success in the overall coup. This is what the words you are saying mean. That's what you're arguing even if you don't want it to be. If you truly don't want it to be, then you'd have to change your argument.

None had any idea what do do after accomplishing this, so they wandered slowly home.

Because the attackers weren't the ones who had the next actions for the coup. The attackers didn't have to know the next step for it to be a coup because the other people were. This makes another criteria you have that everyone has to be in on everything which was Warp's stupid argument.

This is important. Please jot it down because I am bored with repeating it: they did not actually attempt to do anything, much less overthrow a global superpower. They chased a car. They caught it. Then they didn't know what to do. So they went home.

Your say so is not of value. You're reducing the set to the specific attackers and ignore the coup. You think ignoring the people doing the coup makes it not a coup.

That is not an attempt to seize power from the mightiest nation on the planet by any convoluted definition.

It literally is.

Repeat it or don't, it remains staggering wrong. 'Global superpower'. 'The mightiest nation on the planet'. Yeah, you're motivated by the hubris that coups aren't something that happen to places like the US.

This is conspiracy theory reasoning. Literally. This is the same thing 9/11 truthers work on. The misguided belief that to take down something big and complex and powerful the attackers must be big and complex and powerful. It isn't true. There is no law of nature that works that way. You want to write that down?

You're right. The meaning of the ******* words do.

You've been shown time and again that the words mean what they actually do, which is completely at odds with your rationalizations.

Stay mad about it.

 

[Thermal]

Not every interruption may be a seizure, but that doesn't mean that no interruption can be a seizure.

You present a more reasonable argument than others have been giving lately, so let me try to clarify:

The only thing I saw (attempted to be) seized was the time slot. I mean seriously, what would stopping the certification at that time accomplish? Would the might and force of a global superpower say "whelp, you got us. The nation is yours"?

I get that my understanding of "seizure of power" is different than that of many forumites. To me, it is a decisive action, not a vague wish.

I see this as more analogous to a guy trying to get the attention of a lady. He can do so, with or without success (importantly), or kind of scurry around the edges without actually doing anything decisive. Like putting himself in the same crowd she is in, but never actually getting in her view (again, the success of getting her attention is unimportant to whether an actual attempt is even made).

I think Trump didn't expect any success. He just did his incitement because he loves having power to fire up his rabble base and does so at every opportunity. Posters here actually give that whole crew way to much credit for being able to get anything done. Or even attempted, for that matter.

 

[Paul2]

You present a more reasonable argument than others have been giving lately,

Thank you, let's continue as reasonably as we can.

so let me try to clarify:

The only thing I saw (attempted to be) seized was the time slot. I mean seriously, what would stopping the certification at that time accomplish? Would the might and force of a global superpower say "whelp, you got us. The nation is yours"?

The time slot may have been all that was seized, but that's not all they attempted to seize. At least for some attackers, had they found Pence, they would have tried to coerce him into not counting the votes which would have thrown things, eventually, back to the states. To do that on illegitimate grounds - there was no good reason for Pence to not count the votes - would have been part of a coup.

I get that my understanding of "seizure of power" is different than that of many forumites. To me, it is a decisive action, not a vague wish.

I see this as more analogous to a guy trying to get the attention of a lady. He can do so, with or without success (importantly), or kind of scurry around the edges without actually doing anything decisive. Like putting himself in the same crowd she is in, but never actually getting in her view (again, the success of getting her attention is unimportant to whether an actual attempt is even made).

I think Trump didn't expect any success. He just did his incitement because he loves having power to fire up his rabble base and does so at every opportunity. Posters here actually give that whole crew way to much credit for being able to get anything done. Or even attempted, for that matter.

The events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol were not the only part of the coup. Trump had been laying the groundwork for Pence to not count the votes since, well, actually, before the election itself. That was part of the coup, too. As were all the ridiculous court cases. You can't look at Jan. 6 in isolation.

 

[Thermal]

Thank you, let's continue as reasonably as we can.
The time slot may have been all that was seized, but that's not all they attempted to seize. At least for some attackers, had they found Pence, they would have tried to coerce him into not counting the votes which would have thrown things, eventually, back to the states. To do that on illegitimate grounds - there was no good reason for Pence to not count the votes - would have been part of a coup.

I would say that, rather than *would have* been part of a coup, it *could have* been part of a coup. It *could have* if there was a credible attempt to seize power (although if you are committed to seizing illegally and undemocratically, I see not much reason to stand on ceremony. Kind of like bringing flowers to a rape.

This may clear things up: do you think a coup attempt has to be credible to be deemed a coup attempt, or not? I think it does. It needs to be credible, as in having the means, as poster Upchurch mentioned upthread. Without credible force (or coercion or whatever) to actually *take* the power, it amounts to a couple toddlers hatching delusional fantasies. Color me cynical, but I'm not in fear of toddlers. Except that they might break something valuable. Like the Capitol building. But they are not going to break, or even credibly menace, the Republic.

The events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol were not the only part of the coup. Trump had been laying the groundwork for Pence to not count the votes since, well, actually, before the election itself. That was part of the coup, too. As were all the ridiculous court cases. You can't look at Jan. 6 in isolation.

Agreed re: looking at it in toto. But what I see are toddlers nationwide breaking the good China. Super annoying and needs to be stopped, and punished, but not challenging the power of their parents. The parent's power is never threatened by buffoonery.

 

[Paul2]

I would say that, rather than *would have* been part of a coup, it *could have* been part of a coup. It *could have* if there was a credible attempt to seize power (although if you are committed to seizing illegally and undemocratically, I see not much reason to stand on ceremony. Kind of like bringing flowers to a rape.

This may clear things up: do you think a coup attempt has to be credible to be deemed a coup attempt, or not? I think it does. It needs to be credible, as in having the means, as poster Upchurch mentioned upthread. Without credible force (or coercion or whatever) to actually *take* the power, it amounts to a couple toddlers hatching delusional fantasies. Color me cynical, but I'm not in fear of toddlers. Except that they might break something valuable. Like the Capitol building. But they are not going to break, or even credibly menace, the Republic.



Agreed re: looking at it in toto. But what I see are toddlers nationwide breaking the good China. Super annoying and needs to be stopped, and punished, but not challenging the power of their parents. The parent's power is never threatened by buffoonery.

1. If my child (older than a toddler) reaches out to get a cookie, and the cookie is further away than the child can reach, we don't say that the child didn't want the cookie, nor that the child didn't try to get the cookie. I think you might agree with this as an analogy to Jan. 6.

However, I would still instruct my child that they just can't have a cookie anytime they want, they need to ask me, or wait until after dinner, etc. And, depending on the circumstances, I may well be justified in punishing them to a greater or lesser extent.

This means that the mere fact that an attempt cannot succeed doesn't change its ontology, it doesn't change what it is.

2. Had Pence not counted the votes, thrown the question back to the House, the House throws it back to a few states, and the state legislatures vote the election over to Trump, and then Pence counts enough votes for Trump, would that have been a coup?

I'm trying to separate out the potential for success of the coup from its other aspects. You're saying the fact it couldn't have succeeded doesn't make it a coup, but I'm wondering if you'd think it was a coup if it had succeed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, in a way it was a "landslide"...at least compared to what the polling predicted. And 304 to 227 electoral votes isn't too shabby, either. It was a slightly wider margin of victory than Biden enjoyed.

Of course, some will screech about the popular vote (while I laugh at them). But, nobody cares. That isn't what determines a winner.

That Clinton and Biden both got millions more votes than Trump really triggers you, doesn't it?

 

[eerok]

That Clinton and Biden both got millions more votes than Trump really triggers you, doesn't it?

Is it true that no one in American history lost the popular vote in two presidential elections except Trump? I can see why that would disturb the Trump faithful.

 

[Upchurch]

Is it true that no one in American history lost the popular vote in two presidential elections except Trump? I can see why that would disturb the Trump faithful.

Ralph Nader has, I believe.

 

[eerok]

Ralph Nader has, I believe.

Thanks, I wasn't sure.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I would say that, rather than *would have* been part of a coup, it *could have* been part of a coup. It *could have* if there was a credible attempt to seize power (although if you are committed to seizing illegally and undemocratically, I see not much reason to stand on ceremony. Kind of like bringing flowers to a rape.

This may clear things up: do you think a coup attempt has to be credible to be deemed a coup attempt, or not? I think it does. It needs to be credible, as in having the means, as poster Upchurch mentioned upthread. Without credible force (or coercion or whatever) to actually *take* the power, it amounts to a couple toddlers hatching delusional fantasies. Color me cynical, but I'm not in fear of toddlers. Except that they might break something valuable. Like the Capitol building. But they are not going to break, or even credibly menace, the Republic.



Agreed re: looking at it in toto. But what I see are toddlers nationwide breaking the good China. Super annoying and needs to be stopped, and punished, but not challenging the power of their parents. The parent's power is never threatened by buffoonery.

Yes but your beating around the bush and the reason the Whole Coup Fsiled, the Millitary did not support Trump and he was unable to call out the Insurrection act as he wanted to do, because Antifa and BLM set January 6th, out because they were warned in advance.

 

[Warp12]

Yes but your beating around the bush and the reason the Whole Coup Fsiled, the Millitary did not support Trump and he was unable to call out the Insurrection act as he wanted to do, because Antifa and BLM set January 6th, out because they were warned in advance.

I like how people always call Trump a dumbass, but suddenly he becomes a master strategist when planning his "coup".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I like how people always call Trump a dumbass, but suddenly he becomes a master strategist when planning his "coup".

He didn't plan the Coup and yes after meeting the Man I can confirm he has Horse Manure for brains, a True Stable Genius.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I like how people always call Trump a dumbass, but suddenly he becomes a master strategist when planning his "coup".

Maybe if Antifa and BLM hadn't been warned to stay away the plans of the Coup plotters would have worked better for them.

 

[dirtywick]

most people are thankful it was that dumbass coming up with his idiotic strategy. his lawyer was bleeding hair dye in front of a porn store at the time

 

[Stacyhs]

This is an explicit argument that not succeeding means it wasn't a coup, something you also explicitly said you were not making.

Your argument is empty. They attempted to seize the power to install the president and thus the power of the president. Trump et al attempted illegal means through the courts (you can't actually present a case in bad faith lawfully), through illegal legislative moves (the VP cannot lawfully refuse to certify), and through intimidation and violence.

This 'punk ass' plain talk isn't negated by your say so. You have no authority regarding this. You're just not wrong, you're trivially wrong.

Yep.

 

[Stacyhs]

No. For the umpteenth time, *NO*. My argument has clearly been that they did not attempt to do *anything* in terms of seizing power.



They attempted nothing of the kind. The J6ers disrupted the certification temporarily. None had any idea what do do after accomplishing this, so they wandered slowly home.

This is important. Please jot it down because I am bored with repeating it: they did not actually attempt to do anything, much less overthrow a global superpower. They chased a car. They caught it. Then they didn't know what to do. So they went home.

That is not an attempt to seize power from the mightiest nation on the planet by any convoluted definition.



You're right. The meaning of the ******* words do.

Sorry...but you're wrong on this. You can try and cut it up any way you want, but he and his cronies attempted to have the election thrown out by illegal means: calling Raffensperger and telling him to just 'find' the votes he needed, putting pressure on the DOJ to have it declared rigged, inciting others to Stop the Steal, etc.

 

[Craig4]

Maybe if Antifa and BLM hadn't been warned to stay away the plans of the Coup plotters would have worked better for them.

'
There's actually a lot of truth in this. If the January 6 enemy force had encountered a mass of BLM and other counter protestors, I suspect that Trump and his Treason of the Clerks behind him would have used the Insurrection Act as an attempt to stay in power. Ultimately, it would not have worked of course but it would have made January 6th to January 20th very different.