Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[Thermal]

I reject your comparison of something that would break the laws of physics - telekinesis - with (for the sake of argument) the unlikelihood of the Jan 6 attackers succeeding.

There is nothing about an *attempt* to use telekinesis that would break the laws of physics. Oh wait...you are evaluating the attempt based on its possibility of success? That would mean that you reject the attempt based on its credibility.

Since you didn't answer when asked twice directly, I'll take this as your answer. You reject the notion of an attempt if it is not credible. Pop a Post-It here; I have a feeling we'll be returning to this one.

My hypothetical is trying to set a baseline as well as find an area of agreement. Can you just answer my question: would that hypothetical count as a coup, in your opinion?

I'll play along. Your hypothetical is too vague to extrapolate on. Start with the first posit: VP Pence refuses to certify the count, as he is Constitutionally required to. On what grounds? If none, that *could* be the opening volley of a coup on its own.

 

[Thermal]

Putting pressure on and threatening government officials to have them perform illegal actions seems illegal to me. If those actions are intended to seize power, then it seems like an illegal attempt to seize power to me. Telling thousands of people that the 2020 election is stolen and that they should march on the Capitol to prevent it seems like Incitement to Riot to me, which is also illegal.

Lots of things are illegal. What we are talking about is not simple illegality, but illegally seizing power. "Putting pressure" on someone may be coercive, but it doesn't seize anything, or attempt to do so.

I think a lot of you see preliminary steps as equivalent to the act itself? Kind of like the set crew on a film production is the actual movie?

 

[Paul2]

There is nothing about an *attempt* to use telekinesis that would break the laws of physics. Oh wait...you are evaluating the attempt based on its possibility of success? That would mean that you reject the attempt based on its credibility.

You were comparing an attempt at telekinesis with an attempt to seize power. You were implying that the attempt to seize power on Jan 6 would be as ludicrous as an attempt to grab a cookie by telekinesis, and I'm saying that is a poor comparison.

Since you didn't answer when asked twice directly, I'll take this as your answer. You reject the notion of an attempt if it is not credible. Pop a Post-It here; I have a feeling we'll be returning to this one.

The problem with the telekinesis comparison makes your point moot, but I'll answer directly: it would be an attempt. The thing that makes an attempt an attempt is not the likelihood of success, but the intent of the person. I'll try that for a while and see how it goes.

ETA: If I scrunch up my face, thinking that will engage by telekinetic powers to fling the cookie over to where I am, I am trying to get the cookie, even though I have 0% chance of succeeding, and as ludicrous as my attempt is. I'm still trying to get the cookie = I'm still attempting to get the cookie.

I'll play along. Your hypothetical is too vague to extrapolate on. Start with the first posit: VP Pence refuses to certify the count, as he is Constitutionally required to. On what grounds? If none, that *could* be the opening volley of a coup on its own.

I was assuming the facts we know about Jan. 6, which means there were no valid grounds to not count the votes. But, I appreciate your answer, I consider the baseline set.

 

[Thermal]

You were comparing an attempt at telekinesis with an attempt to seize power. You were implying that the attempt to seize power on Jan 6 would be as ludicrous as an attempt to grab a cookie by telekinesis, and I'm saying that is a poor comparison.
The problem with the telekinesis comparison makes your point moot, but I'll answer directly: it would be an attempt. The thing that makes an attempt an attempt is not the likelihood of success, but the intent of the person. I'll try that for a while and see how it goes.

ETA: If I scrunch up my face, thinking that will engage by telekinetic powers to fling the cookie over to where I am, I am trying to get the cookie, even though I have 0% chance of succeeding, and as ludicrous as my attempt is. I'm still trying to get the cookie = I'm still attempting to get the cookie.

I was assuming the facts we know about Jan. 6, which means there were no valid grounds to not count the votes. But, I appreciate your answer, I consider the baseline set.

The issue I have with the Cookie Conundrum is that it it too binary a comparison. You did attempt to get it, or you did not.

The J6 argument is whether it was an attempt at all, or something dumber. I honestly feel like you guys are giving them way to much credit. I doubt a single one even understood what a coup d'etat even is, much less attempted to orchestrate one. Where you see a political faction with a clear political goal, I see dogs chasing cars.

Which one is more consistent with the end result? Woof, say I.

 

[Random]

Lots of things are illegal. What we are talking about is not simple illegality, but illegally seizing power. "Putting pressure" on someone may be coercive, but it doesn't seize anything, or attempt to do so.

I think a lot of you see preliminary steps as equivalent to the act itself? Kind of like the set crew on a film production is the actual movie?

The preliminary steps are parts of the overall Coup. The actual seizing of power did not happen, that is why it is an "Attempted Coup".

Assume I gather a gang for a bank robbery. We plan the robbery, we acquire weapons, we wear ski masks, we drive to the bank, get out of the car and rush up the stairs. At the top of the stairs we are met with a bunch of police officers and firemen and are quickly arrested.

Even if the bank had closed a half-hour earlier that day due to a burst sprinkler pipe, would we not still be guilty of Attempted Robbery?

 

[Paul2]

The issue I have with the Cookie Conundrum is that it it too binary a comparison. You did attempt to get it, or you did not.

I don't see why that is a problem. We said Jan 6 was (part of) an attempt at a coup, and you said it wasn't. That's a binary, and not all binaries are bad. Certainly, the likelihood or reasonableness of an attempt can be put on a continuum.

The J6 argument is whether it was an attempt at all, or something dumber. I honestly feel like you guys are giving them way to much credit.

Competency is not a criterion for evaluating whether something is an attempt.

I doubt a single one even understood what a coup d'etat even is, much less attempted to orchestrate one. Where you see a political faction with a clear political goal, I see dogs chasing cars.

This point of yours has already been countered, yet you're ignoring the counter and just stating it again. Jan. 6 was only part of the entire coup attempt, one populated with some people who may be characterized as you do above. But that doesn't matter if Jan. 6 is only part of the coup attempt.

 

[Wudang]

Seizing is an action verb with a clear meaning. Power, in this context, has the clear meaning of political power. While the Trumpsters did a lot of unforgivable things, they didn't attempt a coup. And yes, I think the credibility of the threat factors in. Just for dignity's sake, if nothing else.

Come to think of it, that might be why I'm digging in so hard on this. Calling this bufoonish slobbery a legitimate coup attempt makes them sound more intelligent than they are. Perhaps it's just a visceral rejection of the suggestion that they have human intelligence.

I can understand you not wanting to dignify a bunch of idiots with no clue blundering around ineffectively but on this side of the pond we still have to call that "the government". YMMV.
And I'm not calling it a "legitimate" coup attempt any more than I'd call some of the winguts in the science threads "legitimate" attempts to reject say GR or QM, they're still attempts even if they don't have the most basic credentials of maths or units. ******* pathetic but still attempts.

Nonetheless, I'll keep holding them to a higher standard of punishment than most here, without affording them the dignity of a political aim. They are just imbeciles being imbeciles.

See my previous remark re: provision of blindfold and last cigarette. How serious I am is left as an exercise for the reader.

Eta: actually no, so I may be missing the context. Sounds like that's actually out of the Hitler playbook, though: Keep repeating a lie till people start to believe it.

Sorry, good movie by the way. My intent was that sometimes if people keep saying that what they read is not what you meant them to take from your words maybe there's a problem. I know I've been there, particularly on UK/US discussions but sometimes with other UKers. Bluesjnr and I (both Scots of a certain age) kept completely misreading each other in one thread. One subtle example is an IBM manual where I had to explain to the author that UK readers read one critical sentence on security setup one way and US another. Neither of us could see how it was ambiguous but we finally found a set of words we agreed on. (RMDS RACF configuration flags FWIW)

 

[Thermal]

The preliminary steps are parts of the overall Coup. The actual seizing of power did not happen, that is why it is an "Attempted Coup".

Assume I gather a gang for a bank robbery. We plan the robbery, we acquire weapons, we wear ski masks, we drive to the bank, get out of the car and rush up the stairs. At the top of the stairs we are met with a bunch of police officers and firemen and are quickly arrested.

Even if the bank had closed a half-hour earlier that day due to a burst sprinkler pipe, would we not still be guilty of Attempted Robbery?

Exactly my point. Each of the direct steps were taken to accomplish the goal. Clear, organized, disciplined logistics with a specific common objective. That it ultimately failed is irrelevant; the attempt was clear.

By comparison, there was no J6 et al plan beyond the vague wish that Orange Man Good. To correct your analogy: you want to take over a bank. A couple guys submit court filings claiming they really own the bank. Thrown out. The guys get quiet. Another guy tries to pressure his coworkers into giving him their stockholdings in the Bank. They laugh him off and he goes away. Finally a group of these guys kids spray paint graffiti on the bank and poop in the mailbox.

Attempted bank robbery, yes?

A coup, by definition, is specific in goal. If you don't have a specific goal, well...you're not really attempting to do something you are unaware of.

 

[Thermal]

I don't see why that is a problem. We said Jan 6 was (part of) an attempt at a coup, and you said it wasn't. That's a binary, and not all binaries are bad. Certainly, the likelihood or reasonableness of an attempt can be put on a continuum.
Competency is not a criterion for evaluating whether something is an attempt.

No, we agree on the events. We disagree on their motivation.

This point of yours has already been countered, yet you're ignoring the counter and just stating it again. Jan. 6 was only part of the entire coup attempt, one populated with some people who may be characterized as you do above. But that doesn't matter if Jan. 6 is only part of the coup attempt.

And this point of yours has been countered (Begging the Question that it *was* a coup/attempt) and you just state it again.

My baseline for a coup attempt would be a conscious decision to illegally wrest power away, and Institute your desired leader. I contend that none of them that I can see had this objective. "I'm gonna badger and cajole and break stuff till I get my way" does not suffice. To attempt a coup, you need, by definition, to know what you are doing.

 

[Random]

Exactly my point. Each of the direct steps were taken to accomplish the goal. Clear, organized, disciplined logistics with a specific common objective. That it ultimately failed is irrelevant; the attempt was clear.

By comparison, there was no J6 et al plan beyond the vague wish that Orange Man Good.

Sure there was. Have Pence call states for Trump that went to Biden. If that didn't work, have Pence say that there was no majority vote and send it to the House for a delegation vote. If that didn't work, stop the counting of the Electoral College votes, then say that because the Electoral College vote didn't happen on the right day, it had to go to the House.

There were a bunch of plans in place, most of them legally absurd. The objective was to create a legalesque argument that he had won then take it to the Supreme Court if necessary. Since Trump had a 6-3 Supreme Court, they might have ruled for him. Presto, American Democracy is dead.

The mob was just there to put a metaphorical gun to the head of Congress. It didn't need to have a plan, any more than a gun needs to have a plan for a robbery.

To correct your analogy: you want to take over a bank. A couple guys submit court filings claiming they really own the bank. Thrown out. The guys get quiet. Another guy tries to pressure his coworkers into giving him their stockholdings in the Bank. They laugh him off and he goes away. Finally a group of these guys kids spray paint graffiti on the bank and poop in the mailbox.

Attempted bank robbery, yes?
A coup, by definition, is specific in goal. If you don't have a specific goal, well...you're not really attempting to do something you are unaware of.

No. That would be Extortion, ala "Nice bank you have here, shame if anything happened to it..." Mobsters have gone to jail for that kind of thing.

 

[Thermal]

I can understand you not wanting to dignify a bunch of idiots with no clue blundering around ineffectively but on this side of the pond we still have to call that "the government". YMMV.

And I'm not calling it a "legitimate" coup attempt any more than I'd call some of the winguts in the science threads "legitimate" attempts to reject say GR or QM, they're still attempts even if they don't have the most basic credentials of maths or units. ******* pathetic but still attempts.

Agreed. The difference with the coup-coup-be-doops is that I don't think they actually had an objective that should be characterized as illegally wresting power. It's not that they were incompetent or ineffective. It's that they didn't know what the he'll they were doing. It boils down more to the distinction between, say, reckless homicide and negligent homicide. Both solidly in the bad category, but motivated differently.

That's not to say they should be cut any slack. At all. What they did was a profound betrayal to our nation. It just wasn't a coup. They lacked both the wit and the cojones to even attempt such a thing.

See my previous remark re: provision of blindfold and last cigarette. How serious I am is left as an exercise for the reader.

Sorry, good movie by the way. My intent was that sometimes if people keep saying that what they read is not what you meant them to take from your words maybe there's a problem. I know I've been there, particularly on UK/US discussions but sometimes with other UKers. Bluesjnr and I (both Scots of a certain age) kept completely misreading each other in one thread. One subtle example is an IBM manual where I had to explain to the author that UK readers read one critical sentence on security setup one way and US another. Neither of us could see how it was ambiguous but we finally found a set of words we agreed on. (RMDS RACF configuration flags FWIW)

I hear that. But I'm not sure how I could express my POV any clearer. They should be building new prisons to house these clowns for their long term stays for betraying their country, though I doubt a single one actually thought that they could even attempt to actually seize it. A coup is just the wrong term for their particular brand of betrayal.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If some drunk at a bar jumps up and declares himself Emperor of Scotland, has he made a coup attempt?

If a mob of football fans trash city hall, then take some selfies and wander off, have they attempted to undemocratically wrest power from the government?

Seizing is an action verb with a clear meaning. Power, in this context, has the clear meaning of political power. While the Trumpsters did a lot of unforgivable things, they didn't attempt a coup. And yes, I think the credibility of the threat factors in. Just for dignity's sake, if nothing else.

Come to think of it, that might be why I'm digging in so hard on this. Calling this bufoonish slobbery a legitimate coup attempt makes them sound more intelligent than they are. Perhaps it's just a visceral rejection of the suggestion that they have human intelligence.

Nonetheless, I'll keep holding them to a higher standard of punishment than most here, without affording them the dignity of a political aim. They are just imbeciles being imbeciles.



Eta: actually no, so I may be missing the context. Sounds like that's actually out of the Hitler playbook, though: Keep repeating a lie till people start to believe it.

If a person tries to rob a bank with a toy gun, is it a crime if the bank tellers notice it's just a toy and do not comply and the toy gunner just leaves?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Agreed. The difference with the coup-coup-be-doops is that I don't think they actually had an objective that should be characterized as illegally wresting power. It's not that they were incompetent or ineffective. It's that they didn't know what the he'll they were doing. It boils down more to the distinction between, say, reckless homicide and negligent homicide. Both solidly in the bad category, but motivated differently.

Essentially, many of us are calling it a tomato and you are arguing that it's not a tomato but it's the most popular, red fruit used in making sauce for pizza.......

 

[Paul2]

No, we agree on the events. We disagree on their motivation.



And this point of yours has been countered (Begging the Question that it *was* a coup/attempt) and you just state it again.

My baseline for a coup attempt would be a conscious decision to illegally wrest power away, and Institute your desired leader. I contend that none of them that I can see had this objective. "I'm gonna badger and cajole and break stuff till I get my way" does not suffice. To attempt a coup, you need, by definition, to know what you are doing.

Can’t *part* of a coup attempt be unwitting?

 

[Thermal]

If a person tries to rob a bank with a toy gun, is it a crime if the bank tellers notice it's just a toy and do not comply and the toy gunner just leaves?

Yes. Why do you ask?

If he demands the cashier hand over cash, under threat of illegal, immediate and direct lethal violence. that's an attempted robbery. Can you point to the coup-coups who ordered Congress to reinstate Trump under threat of immediate, illegal direct and lethal violence?

 

[Thermal]

Can’t *part* of a coup attempt be unwitting?

Sure. As long as the primary motivation, that annoying illegal seizure of power thingy, is in place, many peripheral details could contribute unwittingly.

You really can't accuse someone of an unknowing or incidental coup attempt, though.

 

[Thermal]

Sure there was. Have Pence call states for Trump that went to Biden. If that didn't work, have Pence say that there was no majority vote and send it to the House for a delegation vote. If that didn't work, stop the counting of the Electoral College votes, then say that because the Electoral College vote didn't happen on the right day, it had to go to the House.

None of which happened, so kinda irrelevant. There were a bunch of plans in place, most of them legally absurd. The objective was to create a legalesque argument that he had won then take it to the Supreme Court if necessary. Since Trump had a 6-3 Supreme Court, they might have ruled for him. Presto, American Democracy is dead. . The mob was just there to put a metaphorical gun to the head of Congress. It didn't need to have a plan, any more than a gun needs to have a plan for a robbery. No. That would be Extortion, ala "Nice bank you have here, shame if anything happened to it..." Mobsters have gone to jail for that kind of thing.[/QUOTE] But not for attempting to overthrow the government. Because that's not the crime they commited. Sound familiar?

 

[Paul2]

Sure. As long as the primary motivation, that annoying illegal seizure of power thingy, is in place, many peripheral details could contribute unwittingly.

You really can't accuse someone of an unknowing or incidental coup attempt, though.

Trump created the Jan 6 event, stoked it, etc., in service of his attempt to becomes president despite losing the election. That makes the attack on the Capitol part of Trump’s coup attempt even if no one there understood what part they played, especially since the goal of at least some there was to pressure Pence to not count the votes.

 

[Thermal]

Essentially, many of us are calling it a tomato and you are arguing that it's not a tomato but it's the most popular, red fruit used in making sauce for pizza.......

More like you are holding up a tomato and I'm pointing out that in point of fact, it's a banana. Then I note how it is yellow, long and universe shaped. And you say "yep. Tomato. Tomato sounds better and more exciting".

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes. Why do you ask?

If he demands the cashier hand over cash, under threat of illegal, immediate and direct lethal violence. that's an attempted robbery. Can you point to the coup-coups who ordered Congress to reinstate Trump under threat of immediate, illegal direct and lethal violence?

You mean besides the crowds that invaded the Capitol on January 6th?