• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

mgidm86

Philosopher
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
8,624
Continued from here. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous threads.
Posted By: Agatha




To repeat:

Agreed. They needlessly complicate things.

Suppose Pence went along with the cockamamie scheme to refuse to certify electors, nobody gets 270 votes in the EC, the election gets thrown into the House, and Trump wins ("wins"). Would you regard that as a coup?

Depends on the specifics, but probably yes, with the lion's share of the blame on Pence for actually taking the unconstitutional steps to make it happen. Still can't see any plausible way for him to refuse the certification that the action wouldn't be challenged, and Pence likely going to the hoosegow.

And that's how I see the whole crew; lots of yapping about what they're gonna do, but too timid to actually do it.

So it's probably an attempted coup.

Pence would not get the lion's share of blame: It starts with the president. Pence would have been following orders ........


:thumbsup: Sounds like we are all in agreement now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Admittedly, I was powerfully turned off by his "it's not up for debate" approach (which I note you didn't address). That's not what intelligent people say. That's what exceptionally stupid people say when they can't argue their point yet demand it be accepted as fact. Theres a term for that.

In this context it means "there is great agreement among people who have actually studied the subject and understand the concept and possible versions of a coup." He then goes on to demonstrate just that by pointing out and explaining some of those categories which are often left unconsidered by people who have not studied this at all. He also names and characterizes his sources. So he, in fact, DOES argue the point.

Tommok
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.

Reminds me of Kellyanne's "Alternative facts" when trying to spin Sean Spicer's lies.
 
Freaking Trump supporting morons yesterday claim Jan. 6 was a set up by Dems and FBI:


MTG and Matt Gaetz Brought out a video where they Accused Ray Epps of being an FBI plant, Ray Epps is an Oklahoma Bombing Conspiracy theorist who believed the FBI blew up babies in the Alfred P Morrow building to destroy the Militia Movement!
He is an Original Waco Whacko Oath Keeper nut job!
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.

the problem is Thermal's argument appears to be that it didn't feel significant so it's not a coup
 
the problem is Thermal's argument appears to be that it didn't feel significant so it's not a coup

I think the problem is that Thermal landed on that position on 1/6 and nothing we’ve learned since has been allowed to change that. Classic fitting the data to the theory entree, with a side of cherry-picking.
 
I think the problem is that Thermal landed on that position on 1/6 and nothing we’ve learned since has been allowed to change that. Classic fitting the data to the theory entree, with a side of cherry-picking.

You are both wrong, and painfully so, but I'm bored to death repeating to you.
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.

Eh. I see this subforum as one of the few opportunities to be able to go over the fine details. This was never about whether the attack was bad for "USA Politics" or not. At least not here.
 
The internet has a long memory.

I assume you meant to link to this post:

Thermal said:
Unless they have some actual plan or means to seize power, no. It's just a Dildo Storm of nitwits, who are in for an unpleasant acquaintance with the legal system. .

Let's watch, shall we, as the Dildo Storm is swept into inconsequence by Capitol Security.


Yes...yes, that's what I said, and stand by it. They were in fact nitwits. They are in fact experiencing an unpleasant acquaintance with our legal system. They were substantially inconsequential, as the certification resumed a few hours later. This is rather what I meant by getting tired of repeating the same thing. Do you want a gold star for understanding what "repeating" means? Dunno where you are going with this.

You’ve been saying the same thing since during the insurrection. You’d made up your mind before it was even over and no evidence has since shaken your belief.

I love it that you are blind to the irony of your comment here.
 
Yes...yes, that's what I said, and stand by it. They were in fact nitwits. They are in fact experiencing an unpleasant acquaintance with our legal system. They were substantially inconsequential, as the certification resumed a few hours later. This is rather what I meant by getting tired of repeating the same thing. Do you want a gold star for understanding what "repeating" means? Dunno where you are going with this.
The point that you're missing is that you jumped to a conclusion and have not changed it despite evidence we've gotten since then. The fundamental tenant of skepticism is to question assumptions, especially one's own. You've failed to do with, on numerous occasions, for no rational reason. The rationalizations you do give, when you give any at all, are filled with logical fallacies, primarily cherry-picking.

I love it that you are blind to the irony of your comment here.
In order for it to be ironic, I would have had to jumped to immediate conclusion. I did not do that. I didn't even start calling it a coup until November 2021 because I was trying to understand all the aspects of what had happened, and I knew more information would come out in the weeks and months following. Honestly, there will continue to be more information as investigations continue, but every bit of it so far has pointed in the direction of this being an attempted coup.
 
Yes...yes, that's what I said, and stand by it. They were in fact nitwits. They are in fact experiencing an unpleasant acquaintance with our legal system. They were substantially inconsequential, as the certification resumed a few hours later. This is rather what I meant by getting tired of repeating the same thing. Do you want a gold star for understanding what "repeating" means? Dunno where you are going with this.

The January 6th insurrectionists were "substantially inconsequential".

This ace threat assessment has been brought to you the same person who offered this chilling warning about what might happen if statues are torn down:
Any mob, with any motivation, being empowered by precedent to do anything they like without regard for the procedural will of the actual people. For a start.
 
One of the Capitol rioters, a non-arrestee who has been expecting to plea guilty during her arraignment on Monday as part of a plea agreement, has just been charged but curiously again not arrested after a fatal drunk-driving accident in Missouri. She was allegedly intoxicated and driving the wrong way on the interstate when she smashed into another vehicle, killing one of its occupants and injuring another.

Are we going through another phase of trying not to jail people unless absolutely necessary, due to COVID?
 
I have come to change my opinion on this attempted coup since the insurrection. Even then I thought it was a fairly spontaneous mentally-ill Dump affair.

But now it is coming out that the Dump insiders were planning for months how they would overturn the election they believed Trump would lose. (Some of this is probably already in the thread, sorry.)

'Do you realize you're describing a coup?': MSNBC host challenges Trump aide after he described plans to overturn the 2020 election
Peter Navarro described Trump allies' plans to decertify the 2020 election results to MSNBC.
He detailed the plans to challenge the results in battleground states.
Host Ari Melber shot back, asking: "Do you realize you are describing a coup?"
There was the plan for GOP legislators to challenge the votes in key states, sending the vote to the House to decide. Navarro admitted to this plan openly on the news interview calling it the Green Bay Sweep and opined that if only Pence went along with the plan and Dump supporters stayed calm it would work. Navarro's oblivious to the fact he was describing something illegal.


From last Oct, now getting a bit more attention: All the ways Michigan made the congressional report on Trump trying to overturn the election - Mich. U.S. attorneys received talking points on Antrim Co. ‘coverup’
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee released the lengthy report on Thursday, following many months of investigation into Trump’s repeated efforts to involve the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in his plans to illegally subvert the 2020 election results.

For their report, Democrats examined documents, interviewed key figures and compiled timelines to get a clearer picture of what happened during that time.


Leading up to January 6, Steve Bannon publicly bragged about his behind-the-scene role fomenting the insurrection
In the days before the January 6 insurrection, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon bragged on his podcast about his behind-the-scenes efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election.

These claims include calls and meetings he joined with conservative lawyer John Eastman and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who were then running the Trump legal team’s “war room” out of the Willard Hotel in downtown Washington, D.C., where allies conspired to advance crackpot legal theories and misinformation campaigns aimed at stealing the 2020 presidential election from Joe Biden. At one point, Bannon suggested the team at the Willard Hotel solicited bail on behalf of Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who had been arrested in Washington, D.C., the day before the insurrection.


There was Flynn's encouragement that Dump claim massive election fraud and declare martial law under the Insurrection Act. [Oh the irony there.]

What is the Insurrection Act and how could Trump use it?

Nov 2021: Lawyer John Eastman and Michael Flynn among six subpoenaed by Capitol attack panel
The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack has issued subpoenas to six of Donald Trump’s associates involved in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election from a “command center” at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC.

The subpoenas demanding documents and testimony open a new line of inquiry into the coordinated strategy by the White House and the Trump campaign to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, and whether it was connected to the 6 January insurrection.
The article is 2 months old but more details of the plot have come out since.

Legal Experts Accuse Michael Flynn of ‘Breathtakingly Morally Treasonous’ Sedition for Urging Donald Trump to Declare Martial Law
 
I have come to change my opinion on this attempted coup since the insurrection. Even then I thought it was a fairly spontaneous mentally-ill Dump affair.

But now it is coming out that the Dump insiders were planning for months how they would overturn the election they believed Trump would lose. (Some of this is probably already in the thread, sorry.)

'Do you realize you're describing a coup?': MSNBC host challenges Trump aide after he described plans to overturn the 2020 election

There was the plan for GOP legislators to challenge the votes in key states, sending the vote to the House to decide. Navarro admitted to this plan openly on the news interview calling it the Green Bay Sweep and opined that if only Pence went along with the plan and Dump supporters stayed calm it would work. Navarro's oblivious to the fact he was describing something illegal.
I saw that whole interview, and my favorite line was when Ari Melber said (paraphrasing), "You realize you're the type of person the Constitution protects the rest of us against?"

Hoo-hah! :thumbsup:
 
RollingStone: Swing State Trumpers Forged Letters to National Archives in Harebrained Scheme to Overturn Election
Pro-Trump groups in Arizona and Michigan attempted to fool the National Archives by sending forged certificates of ascertainment declaring Trump the recipient of the state’s 2020 electors. The Jan. 6 committee now has those fake certificates, thanks to the secretaries of State for both swing states, Politico reported on Monday.

The National Archives shared the forged documents with state officials, informing them it would not accept the fakes.
This is after Wisconsin's forgers were revealed.

Notarized and all for prosecutors to act on. Hopefully they will.
 
Last edited:
Continued from here. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous threads.
Posted By: Agatha




To repeat:








:thumbsup: Sounds like we are all in agreement now.

I'm not sure that is a coup. Do coups ever have cover that they think they are adhering to the law? I'm not sure being mistaken about the rules is a coup.
 
Most Coups invoke some overriding, more 'Original' rule, law or principle as justification.

It's a trick to get fence sitters to not oppose you, and lets other countries pretend that it's not their business.
 
Last edited:
Most Coups invoke some overriding, more 'Original' rule, law or principle to justify themselves.

Yes, that's why I phrased it in a way that accounts for that.

The argument here isn't some older principle or law. The argument seems to be, "it totally says that."

(not every version. I know a version or two where they do pursue an "original principle"....people who thought the US was made a corporation and crap.... but others are just saying it is a clear constitutional power).
 
Last edited:
Look, no one's saying it was a successful coup. But this was definitely a serious attempt at a self-coup by 45 and his allies, and anyone arguing otherwise at this point is either very ignorant or being willfully obtuse/acting in bad faith.

It's not like he or his allies tried at all to hide their intentions. On the contrary, they were all but screaming from the rooftops that they were going to do something like this. And Trump was saying in public that he couldn't possibly lose other than via "fraud" or a "rigged election" going back to the 2016 campaign.

Frankly it would've been a surprise if the man hadn't tried to obstruct his failure to get re-elected and sabotage the outcome. That's how bad it is. Back in the 1970s, campaign-related sabotage, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power were considered serious enough scandals that they forced a President to resign in disgrace on threat of certain impeachment and removal from office. Nowadays the very facts are a partisan issue, which is why bad actors like Trump basically have impunity to do what they want in the knowledge that their team will close ranks and protect them.
 
Last edited:
Look, no one's saying it was a successful coup. But this was definitely a serious attempt at a self-coup by 45 and his allies, and anyone arguing otherwise at this point is either very ignorant or being willfully obtuse/acting in bad faith..

(there were multiple proposals with various levels of sincerity, so it depends on exactly what plan, but...)

I think you are being a little obtuse. The US Constitution contains a lot of undemocratic structures including the ability of legislatures to submit their own electors and processes for the house to choose the president. Efforts to get the bodies to do that certainly wouldn't qualify as a coup.
 
Yes it would.
It's clear that a State has to use the election system it has chosen, and can't retroactively change it to get a different outcome.
If it had chosen to pick it's own electors, that would probably have been constitutional - but what Trump and his fanboys tried to do was definitely a coup attempt.
 
Does the time of chusing get set at Dec 8th because of the cutoff?

Before an Election, the rules of said election must be fixed.

There were no provisions for States to annull their elections in 2020, so any efforts to send in "alternate Electors" were (State) unconstitutional.
 
Before an Election, the rules of said election must be fixed.

There were no provisions for States to annull their elections in 2020, so any efforts to send in "alternate Electors" were (State) unconstitutional.


Congress sets the time of chusing, but where do they get the power to fix the cutoff for election method?
 
(there were multiple proposals with various levels of sincerity, so it depends on exactly what plan, but...)

I think you are being a little obtuse. The US Constitution contains a lot of undemocratic structures including the ability of legislatures to submit their own electors and processes for the house to choose the president. Efforts to get the bodies to do that certainly wouldn't qualify as a coup.
It's a coup because the reasons to not certify and Jan 6 and send it back to the states were ginned up, made up, fabricated, invented, created, imagined, . . . .

I just broke by thesaurus.
 
I'm not sure that is a coup. Do coups ever have cover that they think they are adhering to the law? I'm not sure being mistaken about the rules is a coup.

We have Trump strong-arming the Georgia Secretary of the State to "find" 11,780 votes. We have right wing terrorist storming the Capitol in a violent insurrection. We have pro-Trump groups forging elector documents.

Where in any of that are these people "mistaken about the rules"?
 
"It's not a coup because if you call it a coup... goddamn our asses are on the line."

There. We can stop talking about it or entertaining this stupid ******* years long hairsplitting hijack.
 
Did anyone else see this? Fraudulent Trump / Pence elector lists were sent to Washington by seven states.
Is that actually correct? The article says "from" not "by". It says the documents were assembled by groups of Trump supporters, not by the states themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom