• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
That is incorrect. As a reminder:

"Such plans" refers to plans akin to what was in the ppt file. Meaning that one or more of the plans were presented to Pence even if he never laid on the eyes on a particular file, or even that version of the file. Unless you would care to argue that Pence declined a plan that he was not presented, Pence was presented "such plans".


We do not know that Pence saw this file, but it is reported that he declined the plans it contained. The important part is that the plan for the coup was created and it was seriously communicated to someone who had the capacity to enact at least part of it. As reported, Trump "then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely" in reaction to Pence's rejection of that first plan.

All of this is being reported as fact.
Click to expand...

You seem to be reading "such plans" as meaning "those included in the PowerPoint". I read it as "such plans", meaning those intended to challenge the vote one way or another. Some legal, some surely not, all hairbrained, for sure. Is that our communicative break?
 
Upchurch said:
You didn't describe any difference. You only implied it. They are functionally the same thing.
Click to expand...

Were seriously going to drop the discourse this low? Fine.

"Such plans" can be read to mean "one of this specific group".

"Such plans" can also be read to mean "of this general type".

Care to randomly change the subject yet again? Seems to entertain you to no end.
 
The problem I have here is, the person objecting to a coup being planned or attempted -- "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore...What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution"... -- isn't dissecting the evidence. Isn't writing things like, "I think the clearest evidence that there really was no actual 'coup' planned is this blah-blah-blah." They're not agreeing to disagree. They're just slamming people who don't agree. Anybody can do that. The problem is, at the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything.
 
I do not understand why you're choosing this hill to die on. It seems that no amount of evidence, even your own, will change your beliefs on this topic.
 
Upchurch said:
I do not understand why you're choosing this hill to die on. It seems that no amount of evidence, even your own, will change your beliefs on this topic.
Click to expand...

Ah, there it is. You ask twenty questions, I reply to each directly, even when they get so disingenuous as to feign lack of understanding over different usages of "such"...and now I'm the one dying on a hill.

You really can't make this **** up.
 
Thermal said:
Ah, there it is. You ask twenty questions, I reply to each directly, even when they get so disingenuous as to feign lack of understanding over different usages of "such"...and now I'm the one dying on a hill.

You really can't make this **** up.
Click to expand...

Your responses are all handwaves or flat denial.

It is extremely silly on every level. You are making this stuff up. You pretend to answer things, but the answers are distinctions without difference. The last one is pretending your choice of readings makes a difference to the question Upchurch was asking, but it just doesn't. An answer without value isn't honest thinking.

It was a credible coup attempt. They made plans and tried to execute them. These plans were plans to take power unlawfully, and included violence in the end. Your denial of these basic facts isn't a worthwhile argument. It certainly isn't the fault of others.

This is why our republic will end; even those opposed to the authoritarians refuse to acknowledge the reality of the danger. Too scary.
 
tyr_13 said:
Your responses are all handwaves or flat denial.
Click to expand...

No, we are not going to take it from the top and do the same damn thing all over again with a new poster.

It is extremely silly on every level. You are making this stuff up. You pretend to answer things, but the answers are distinctions without difference. The last one is pretending your choice of readings makes a difference to the question Upchurch was asking, but it just doesn't. An answer without value isn't honest thinking.

It was a credible coup attempt. They made plans and tried to execute them. These plans were plans to take power unlawfully, and included violence in the end. Your denial of these basic facts isn't a worthwhile argument. It certainly isn't the fault of others.

This is why our republic will end; even those opposed to the authoritarians refuse to acknowledge the reality of the danger. Too scary.
Click to expand...

Bald assertions that you are right and I am wrong. Quelle surprise.

And no, I know full well how vulnerable we are. While you guys swoon in your romantic fantasies, Imma keep watch for the credible threat. We'll let you know when you need to stop play-acting and deal with the real thing. It's coming. That, I promise you. but it won't be orange next time. In fact, a lot of you saps will be swooning over him.

Or her, actually. I have to be more cognizant of it possibly being a her.
 
Thermal said:
No, we are not going to take it from the top and do the same damn thing all over again with a new poster.
Click to expand...
Hm. Why do you suppose all these posters are pointing out the flaws in your claims? It's weird.

You rather forcefully remind me of the beginning of the third Indiana Jones movie line, "Everyone's lost but me."
 
Thermal said:
No, we are not going to take it from the top and do the same damn thing all over again with a new poster.
Click to expand...

Yes, you keep doing the fringe reset, including with your own citations.



Bald assertions that you are right and I am wrong. Quelle surprise.
Click to expand...

Your assertions are not more valuable. They are less because they are just wrong. There doesn't need to be more than pointing out that what you've said simply isn't true after the evidence was supplied, including by you, that you're wrong.

And no, I know full well how vulnerable we are. While you guys swoon in your romantic fantasies, Imma keep watch for the credible threat.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't, because this was a credible threat and you deny it. This means you can't identify what is credible. You haven't found a single mechanism by which the coup would be impossible, but you assert it was, therefore...something? Meanwhile others have shown exactly how the attempt could have worked and you just say no. This all leads to the conclusion you're simply bad at making such calls but still are completely confident your assessments are better than people far more credible than yourself.

We'll let you know when you need to stop play-acting and deal with the real thing. It's coming. That, I promise you. but it won't be orange next time. In fact, a lot of you saps will be swooning over him.

Or her, actually. I have to be more cognizant of it possibly being a her.
Click to expand...

How would you know? What identify criteria will you use that aren't the exact things you deny in this thread? Your calls were wrong in real time, yet you're still confident you're good at identifying the 'real threats' without even acknowledging past errors. That you haven't corrected for your mistakes indicates otherwise. Dunning-Kruger strikes again. The ct need to feel special are just the sprinkles on top.
 
Upchurch said:
Hm. Why do you suppose all these posters are pointing out the flaws in your claims? It's weird.

You rather forcefully remind me of the beginning of the third Indiana Jones movie line, "Everyone's lost but me."
Click to expand...

Actually, this is right. But it's not everyone; it's just the mindless parroting politically polarized posters in USA Politics. There's a reason why we don't see most of you guys in other parts of the forum in much force. It's real stuff out there. Not exactly your forte.
 
Thermal said:
Actually, this is right. But it's not everyone; it's just the mindless parroting politically polarized posters in USA Politics. There's a reason why we don't see most of you guys in other parts of the forum in much force. It's real stuff out there. Not exactly your forte.
Click to expand...

Ad homs this dumb certainly do exist all over this forum. 'Real stuff'. lmao

Your failure to deal with people's arguments and evidence does not mean that they're 'mindlessly parroting'. Your assessment of who is being mindless doesn't hold water.

Why do the coup plans that existed and were acted on not count again? Right, because you deny them. Every goalpost you set has been met apart from the coup being successful which you deny is your goalpost.
 
Thermal said:
While you guys swoon in your romantic fantasies, Imma keep watch for the credible threat. We'll let you know when you need to stop play-acting and deal with the real thing.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
How would you know? What identify criteria will you use that aren't the exact things you deny in this thread?
Click to expand...

The more I think about this, the more flaccid your claim here appears.

You have outright refused to connect the less romantic, small things that made up the coup attempt. The analysis employed insists on isolating parts. This 'thinking' even extends to citing that not all of the people storming the Capitol were planning a coup beforehand.

So how would such pale divisionist thinking ever identify a real credible threat besides a single 'romantic' event? A Power Point and trying to kill members of Congress is too subtle for you to accept, therefore anything you thought was credible would have to be more base, more blatant and delinative than those. How are you going to tie together the less bombastic ground laying for the next coup to succeed if you think others are romanticizing a single, big, clear breaking point, event?

Every single thing you bring to support your assertions just shows you being worse at thinking about these things than the people you ad-hom against.
 
tyr_13 said:
Ad homs this dumb certainly do exist all over this forum. 'Real stuff'. lmao

Your failure to deal with people's arguments and evidence does not mean that they're 'mindlessly parroting'. Your assessment of who is being mindless doesn't hold water.

Why do the coup plans that existed and were acted on not count again? Right, because you deny them. Every goalpost you set has been met apart from the coup being successful which you deny is your goalpost.
Click to expand...

One more time for the slow kids in the back:

Many existed. They weren't acted on. You know, attempted. So they were disjointed babbling. That's not a credible threat.

But seriously man. You walk in here and literally want to repeat the same damn arguments all over again because you come in late. No ******* way. Just read the thread. Every thing you are ready to say has been gone over. Not repeating for you.
 
Thermal said:
One more time for the slow kids in the back:

Many existed. They weren't acted on. You know, attempted. So they were disjointed babbling. That's not a credible threat.

But seriously man. You walk in here and literally want to repeat the same damn arguments all over again because you come in late. No ******* way. Just read the thread. Every thing you are ready to say has been gone over. Not repeating for you.
Click to expand...

They were acted on. That's why I'm repeating because it's obvious others are getting tired.

But you remain wrong. Trivially wrong. They acted on it. They tried to get Pence to act. They then got a mob to try to hang him.

This isn't a close call. You don't know that credible is.

EDIT: I'm not going to change a correct argument just because you deny the truth of it.
 
tyr_13 said:
They were acted on. That's why I'm repeating because it's obvious others are getting tired.

But you remain wrong. Trivially wrong. They acted on it. They tried to get Pence to act. They then got a mob to try to hang him.

This isn't a close call. You don't know that credible is.

EDIT: I'm not going to change a correct argument just because you deny the truth of it.
Click to expand...

Great. If you have anything new to add, or even interesting, I'm all ears. If "you're wrongity-wrong-wrong" is about the limit, may I suggest some Dr. Seuss?

Oh, and "they tried to hang him". God, you are so precious to think that cheesy gallows prop was real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom