Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[Thermal]

I mean, yeah. People were calling it a coup for quite a while, and as the investigation into it continues, more and more evidence emerges to supports that. I don't think it's so much as questioning whether or not there were real, actual efforts to overthrow a democratic election for the presidency, but determining the width and breadth of the efforts to make it happen. None of that is really inconsistent with reality, or even particularly confusing to me.

-edit-

And bringing charges like these would be one of the most monumentally important events in US history. Succeeding or failing, or even choosing not to bring charges, will be one of the things that alters the course of the country forever. One would hope they would be thorough in the investigation and not take any decisions lightly here.

See, this is the thing. Everyone is treating "overturn an election" as the same as a coup, which is seizing power. People who are seizing power are not concerned with elections or certifications or procedures...they are ******* seizing the ******* power.

 

[Stacyhs]

See, this is the thing. Everyone is treating "overturn an election" as the same as a coup, which is seizing power. People who are seizing power are not concerned with elections or certifications or procedures...they are ******* seizing the ******* power.

Are you seriously claiming that, by overturning the election, Trump and his minions would no be seizing the power of the presidency?

 

[Thermal]

Strange. Your by simple definition of a 'coup attempt' just doesn't seem to agree with what the dictionaries say.

Yeah, you put up a definition recently, and even hilited it...but you quite pointedly did not hilite the first word: Seize.

 

[Thermal]

Are you seriously claiming that, by overturning the election, Trump and his minions would no be seizing the power of the presidency?

By the means thus far proposed? No, they would not.

Serious question: what does 'seize' mean to you? Is it a very passive thing, like if you ask a court to give you an election, and they laugh at you, were you 'seizing' the election?

 

[dirtywick]

See, this is the thing. Everyone is treating "overturn an election" as the same as a coup, which is seizing power. People who are seizing power are not concerned with elections or certifications or procedures...they are ******* seizing the ******* power.

the power they get to keep by overturning the election is what they are doing it for. unless you think they need to physically seize the power like it's something tangible you can grab, I don't know. you've spent all this time and energy over that tiny distinction, and you're still not even right about that.

 

[dirtywick]

By the means thus far proposed? No, they would not.

Serious question: what does 'seize' mean to you? Is it a very passive thing, like if you ask a court to give you an election, and they laugh at you, were you 'seizing' the election?

If you attempt to rob a bank and in the middle of it you accidentally get distracted by a long and tedious argument online that you ultimately end up losing while the bank teller laughs at you, have you not attempted to rob a bank?

 

[Thermal]

the power they get to keep by overturning the election is what they are doing it for.

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ. We are not talking about why they are doing it or what they get to keep. You have to know this. I don't believe that you don't know this.

 

[Thermal]

If you attempt to rob a bank and in the middle of it you accidentally get distracted by a long and tedious argument online that you ultimately end up losing while the bank teller laughs at you, have you not attempted to rob a bank?

You have got to be ******* kidding me. I've addressed this exact analogy like half a dozen times already.

You are either not paying marginal attention to the thread or...no. I'm not getting trolled into this.

 

[dirtywick]

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ. We are not talking about why they are doing it or what they get to keep. You have to know this. I don't believe that you don't know this.

I don't know that. I don't know what you're talking about, it's an incoherent argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, you put up a definition recently, and even hilited it...but you quite pointedly did not hilite the first word: Seize.

Again:what fricking part of "attempted" are you not getting?

Once again for those with reading comprehension problems:

"A coup d'état, usually shortened to coup, is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, military, or a dictator."

The 'seizure' only happens if the coup is successful. An attempted coup doesn't succeed in seizing power just like an attempted murder doesn't succeed in actually killing someone. At this point, I don't think you don't understand this very clear and obvious point. You'd just rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper until it caves in on you instead of admitting you're wrong.

Accordingly, I'm done with this topic because sometimes, the horse would rather die of thirst than admit he's thirsty.

 

[dirtywick]

You have got to be ******* kidding me. I've addressed this exact analogy like half a dozen times already.

You are either not paying marginal attention to the thread or...no. I'm not getting trolled into this.

Well I haven't followed the whole thing. But since I have you've mostly just been getting frustrated that insisting you've already won the argument isn't winning you the argument.

 

[Delvo]

Everyone is treating "overturn an election" as the same as a coup, which is seizing power. People who are seizing power are not concerned with elections or certifications or procedures...they are ******* seizing the ******* power.

Now would be a good time to explain how illegally putting the election's loser in power despite the election results, thus completely disregarding the election and making it functionally irrelevant and making the outcome based on something other than the election just the same as if there hadn't been an election, isn't seizing power.

Because of the lack of violence? No, it depended on violence, and even if it hadn't, that wouldn't work anyway, because that isn't required; it's only the distinction between a military coup d'état and a non-military one. Your assertion seems to depend on the military kind being the only kind, which it is not. That's why the phrase "military coup (d'état)" exists: because some aren't.

 

[Thermal]

Now would be a good time to explain how illegally putting the election's loser in power despite the election results, thus completely disregarding the election and making it functionally irrelevant and making the outcome based on something other than the election just the same as if there hadn't been an election, isn't seizing power.

Because of the lack of violence? No, it depended on violence, and even if it hadn't, that wouldn't work anyway, because that isn't required; it's only the distinction between a military coup d'état and a non-military one. Your assertion seems to depend on the military kind being the only kind, which it is not. That's why the phrase "military coup (d'état)" exists: because some aren't.

Which is not what I am saying, and have clarified repeatedly, much like I have painstakingly clarified that the end result has nothing to do with whether or not it was attempted.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

With Republicans explicitly abandoning democracy, I have very little hope for the foreseeable future, no matter who wins an election: since 2018 the latest, a much too large chunk of Americans no longer believes that elections are free and fair - and that won't change whether Trump wins or loses.

 

[Lurch]

We're not talking about crimes he's done (and btw, I've been howling about his crimes since literally the last century right up to today). We are talking about this one very specific crime. One of the greatest offenses that can be taken against the United States.



You mean the OJ that was arrested, charged, and tried for murder? Let's compare with...oh Christ, why do I bother.



Priceless. "They just can't be bothered to charge people with the one of the highest crimes committed against the Union". Seriously, you can't make this **** up.



As I've said over and over, I hope every one goes down in serious prison time. But what I asked you is why aren't they charged now, or six months ago, if it is as obvious and indisputable as you claim?

It's simple. If it is recognized as a coup attempt, that is one of the most serious crimes against the nation. Trump would not be walking as a free man. Period. You guys just can't see that external reality does not agree with you. It agrees with me. Why haven't any of the hundreds of J6ers been charged with sedition if it is so obvious and indisputable?

Tell me again how the DOJ, Democrat controlled Congress, and Democratic Executive branch can't be bothered to charge them with this offense against the State. I peed a little the last time.

Have you considered that the delay in charging could be for a number of reasons?

First, this is a unique event in the country's history. Never has a President been implicated in a coup attempt. Uncharted waters here.

Second, the history of the office of the POTUS being almost venerated is a hurdle to overcome. The ever present fear of the impact on the nation of charging a Prez is very real.

Third, the DoJ, as the 3rd branch of the checks and balances scheme, must have an ironclad case before going after anyone in the other two branches.

Fourth, Garland would seem to be cautious almost to the point of pusilanimity.


In the movies the bad guys top to bottom are dealt with swiftly. In this real life situation, the power bestowed by the nation to a number of the coup leadership imposes a slowing of the cogs in the Justice system.

 

[Lurch]

Nightmare scenario: Trump is not held accountable for his treasonous coup attempt and is allowed to cheat his way to a 2024 victory after some state elections laws have been tweaked in his favor.

It's my nightmare too. I keep saying that the US is sleepwalking its way into this. This veneration of the office of the POTUS has got to be ended. Otherwise you might as well install a king.

 

[varwoche]

See, this is the thing. Everyone is treating "overturn an election" as the same as a coup, which is seizing power. People who are seizing power are not concerned with elections or certifications or procedures...they are ******* seizing the ******* power.

Overturning an established democracy necessarily takes a different form than overturning a dictatorship.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

A coup is seizing or wresting power.

And an attempted coup is an attempt at seizing or wresting power.

You must know the difference.

 

[Hellbound]

I think I may get Thermal’s argument.

They didn’t attempt to directly seize the power if the President, therefore not s coup.

I think that’s wrong.

They attempted to seize the power of the Vice-President and Congress, specifically the power to certify elections, as a means to indirectly seize Presidential power.

Maybe this will help clarify both sides?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thermal]

I think I may get Thermal’s argument.

They didn’t attempt to directly seize the power if the President, therefore not s coup.

If only I had thought to say this 865,204 times.

I think that’s wrong.

They attempted to seize the power of the Vice-President and Congress, specifically the power to certify elections, as a means to indirectly seize Presidential power.

Maybe this will help clarify both sides?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indirectly is the operative word. You seize directly. That's the difference between seizing and trying to wiggle it in through the back door. That makes it a similar, but distinctly different, act.

Seizing, to put it plainly, doesn't require everyone to see things your way. You are ignoring what they want and taking it anyway.

They surely tried to flip the results. That is not a seizure, or an attempted seizure, or incompetent attempted seizure, or had-an-idea-but-it-never-got-off-the-ground-because-we-didn't-have-anyone-who-could-pull-it-off incompetent attempted seizure.