Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[dirtywick]

I don’t think you really addressed any counter arguments. Insisting you have special knowledge of peoples motivations and capabilities isn’t any more believable even if it’s insisted consistently.

 

[varwoche]

I think they skirted around the edges of a coup and kicked the tires a little, but none have the conviction, will, or even the flat-out balls to actually *do* anything to actually make it happen. This is a meek and tentative crew; they all cower back and kind of hope someone else will take the ball. Its a team with an ineffectual quarterback. They can't score a point because the QB won't do anything to make it happen.

Returning to the meta point: you, too, are simply refusing to hear what you don't want to hear. We have a difference of opinion regarding motivations of others. You are as confident in your assessment as I am in mine. Mine, however, need no constant reconstruction after the fact to backpedal from coup to attempted coup to incompetent coup attempt. Mine hold steady without modifications every five minutes. They flirted around the edges but didn't have the force of will or strong leadership necessary to be credible. That's why I worry about the next one. He's out there right now, I am sure. And it won't be a clown show next time.

Regardless what we call it, the effort obviously failed. Nobody claimed the coup was successful and thus had to "back-pedal" from coup to attempted coup. That's flat-out absurd.

As for you holding steady, you'd be well served by some back-pedaling, because you justified your positions with several falsehoods. Contrary to your claims...

• No, Trump didn't order in the Guard.
• Yes, Trump did act illegally.
• Yes, Trump did demonize Raffensperger before the recording was released.

 

[dudalb]

Oh, stop being so dramatic!

I don't have a high opinion of Salon because it has become the textbook example of "Radical Chic".

 

[dudalb]

Maybe.

But I don’t think it’s just the “privileged and entitled” way of life they might fear giving up. It’s more losing any semblance of even a normal life, knowing that speaking out against Trump will be accompanied by harassment and death threats. Have you heard some of the vile recorded threats against legislators, just for the “crime” of voting for an infrastructure bill? Were I an election official or politician here in very red Tennessee, I’d think long and hard about taking positions that would result in death threats against me and my family.

And the inevitabel result of this is the Other Side will decide that terror and threats of violence are "What Works" and we will soon have two miltant movments trying to outdo each other in threats of violence and eventually the real thing.

 

[Thermal]

I don’t think you really addressed any counter arguments. Insisting you have special knowledge of peoples motivations and capabilities isn’t any more believable even if it’s insisted consistently.

Assuming this is addressed to me?

I have addressed each one directly and in considerable detail, which is far more than can be said for the majority of posters who ducked my questions altogether or changed the subject.

Example: the GA Gov: Trump does his typical schoolyard bully thing. He's done the same his whole career. Important: absolutely no follow through. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I see that as perfectly consistent with his actions across decades, including threatening Sec Clinton with jail time. It's his textbook blowhard bullying. Lots of bark, no bite.

You pretty sure that is secret insight, or might that just be regular old interpretation of a known person and how they typically talk in public?

 

[Thermal]

Regardless what we call it, the effort obviously failed. Nobody claimed the coup was successful and thus had to "back-pedal" from coup to attempted coup. That's flat-out absurd.

As for you holding steady, you'd be well served by some back-pedaling, because you justified your positions with several falsehoods. Contrary to your claims...

Come on, man.

• No, Trump didn't order in the Guard.

• 
  
  His cabinet did. Of course he doesn't do every action himself.
  
  

  [*]Yes, Trump did act illegally.

  
  Yeah, you pulled that out of context, didn't ya? The context was when he was calling his lieutenants at the hotel, did he do anything illegal, or did the Guardian writer just allude to that? I didn't call you on it the first time you pulled that, but I am now.
  
  

  [*]Yes, Trump did demonize Raffensperger before the recording was released.

So? He demonized half of Western civilization at one point or another. What he said to Raffensberger wasn't the slightest bit different than any other phone call he made on a given workday. You only see it as different to fit the narrative. I see it as the same old blowhard saying the same bullying **** he ways has.

How's Sec Clinton doing breaking those rocks with a sledgehammer, to be blunt?

 

[dirtywick]

Assuming this is addressed to me?

I have addressed each one directly and in considerable detail, which is far more than can be said for the majority of posters who ducked my questions altogether or changed the subject.

Example: the GA Gov: Trump does his typical schoolyard bully thing. He's done the same his whole career. Important: absolutely no follow through. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I see that as perfectly consistent with his actions across decades, including threatening Sec Clinton with jail time. It's his textbook blowhard bullying. Lots of bark, no bite.

You pretty sure that is secret insight, or might that just be regular old interpretation of a known person and how they typically talk in public?

seems to me he’s done everything he can to end Kemp’s political career. as he did Cheney, Romney, Hogan, Mattie, Sessions, and many others. In fact, I think he has a long history of going to extraordinary lengths to try and hurt people he doesn’t like.

But yeah, maybe not so special after all.

 

[Stacyhs]

Come on, man.

Quote:
No, Trump didn't order in the Guard.

His cabinet did. Of course he doesn't do every action himself.

The point is that Trump SHOULD have ordered his DefSec to send in the Guard but he didn't. Several reports say Trump resisted doing so. There's no need to guess why. After all, they were such 'special' people and "so full of love".

Command of the DC National Guard is under the Secretary of Defense as declared by EXECUTIVE ORDER 10030 in 1947. That was acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller on Jan. 6.


T

he former commanding general of the D.C. National Guard is demanding the retraction of an inspector general report that says Army leaders had to tell him twice to send troops to the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection, saying Thursday that the allegation is false and must be corrected.

William J. Walker, now retired from the military and serving at the Capitol as House sergeant-at-arms, said in an interview that he never received a call from Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy at 4:35 p.m., as alleged in a report by the Defense Department’s acting inspector general, Sean O’Donnell. Walker, repeating comments he made during sworn Senate testimony in March, said that he received authorization to deploy troops at 5:08 p.m. and immediately dispatched those forces, already loaded onto several buses to depart the D.C. Armory.

Walker contends that restrictions placed on him by McCarthy and Trump’s acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, prevented him from sending Guard members to assist sooner. He wanted to do so, he said, and had long-term relations with police officials in Washington that he could have relied on that day.

Walker’s objection to the published details in the report injects fresh tension into the ongoing political turmoil and finger-pointing stemming from the assault, in which supporters of President Donald Trump smashed their way into Congress in a violent attempt to halt certification of the electoral college count affirming his defeat. The Capitol was breached at 1:50 p.m., but National Guard members were not sworn in to assist police until 5:40 p.m., after senior Army officials settled on a plan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...8/william-walker-january-6-inspector-general/

 

[varwoche]

His cabinet did. Of course he doesn't do every action himself.

Weak. It's widely reported that Trump resisted calling in the guard.

Yeah, you pulled that out of context, didn't ya? The context was when he was calling his lieutenants at the hotel, did he do anything illegal, or did the Guardian writer just allude to that? I didn't call you on it the first time you pulled that, but I am now.

This comes back to you deconstructing the coup attempt, and selectively challenging the bits and pieces in a constant stream of minimization. When X happened, there was no objective. When Y happened, no laws were broken. When Z happened, that's just Trump being a bully. Etc. I reject the deconstruction.

So? He demonized half of Western civilization at one point or another. What he said to Raffensberger wasn't the slightest bit different than any other phone call he made on a given workday. You only see it as different to fit the narrative. I see it as the same old blowhard saying the same bullying **** he ways has.

You posted a false claim about the timing in defense of your position. Pay better attention please.

 

[Thermal]

Weak. It's widely reported that Trump resisted calling in the guard.

Is that so? Here was you yesterday:

No, Trump didn't order in the Guard.

Compare those two statements. Make up your bull **** excuses for how you are not contradicting yourself and rewriting the story at every opportunity. Then, as a cherry on top, accuse me of backpedaling and dishonesty.

This comes back to you deconstructing the coup attempt, and selectively challenging the bits and pieces in a constant stream of minimization. When X happened, there was no objective. When Y happened, no laws were broken. When Z happened, that's just Trump being a bully. Etc. I reject the deconstruction.

This is just exquisite.

You make a claim, and if I challenge it on any grounds, I'm dishonestly deconstructing. You are quite literally requiring a paradigm where I cannot refute your claims.

You posted a false claim about the timing in defense of your position. Pay better attention please.

No, your moving the goalposts around. You said Trump put a target on Rassberger's back, in the context of death threats that were made. I opine that he made generic demonization before that (not at all a 'target'), and the target on his back came only after release of the audio, much later. My position was consistent. Yours, yet again, was subject to...whatever you want to call it when you contradict yourself in black and white.

I like your postings too much to continue this, man. It's not an honest or healthy debate anymore. See ya on the next one.

 

[The Don]

Compare those two statements. Make up your bull **** excuses for how you are not contradicting yourself and rewriting the story at every opportunity. Then, as a cherry on top, accuse me of backpedaling and dishonesty.

I'm not sure that I understand the issue. Not only did President Trump not call in the guard, he reportedly actively resisted others in their calling in the guard.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not sure that I understand the issue. Not only did President Trump not call in the guard, he reportedly actively resisted others in their calling in the guard.

Doesn't change the fact that the statements are literally contradictory And backpedaling, while accusing me of backpedaling. And that's what we are talking about here: putting on so much spin that the meaning changes.

No one disputes the facts. The devil is in the doctoring of the narrative. I think we should be literally correct to be in the superior argumentative position (and I mean all of us). Leave it to the Trumster Fires to lie about stolen elections. We should be on the side of unimpugnable accuracy. We should not say "Trump did not order the DCNJ, and in the next breath say "well it is reported he resisted."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Doesn't change the fact that the statements are literally contradictory And backpedaling, while accusing me of backpedaling. And that's what we are talking about here: putting on so much spin that the meaning changes.



No one disputes the facts. The devil is in the doctoring of the narrative. I think we should be literally correct to be in the superior argumentative position (and I mean all of us). Leave it to the Trumster Fires to lie about stolen elections. We should be on the side of unimpugnable accuracy. We should not say "Trump did not order the DCNJ, and in the next breath say "well it is reported he resisted."

The statements are not contradictory.

Backpedalling and spin are odd conclusions to leap to.

Your expectation of exactitude and clarity without clarification or expanded detail coming along as a conversation progresses is nice.

Shall we hold you to this standard, as well?

 

[thaiboxerken]

We should not say "Trump did not order the DCNJ, and in the next breath say "well it is reported he resisted."

But both statements are true.

 

[plague311]

But both statements are true.

I was thinking the exact same thing lol.

You can resist calling them in, and as such not having played any part in calling them in. Unless he ordered his subordinates to do it, which I don't think he did.

 

[Thermal]

"Ralph told the truth", and "Ralph lied" can also be true at the same time. Playing word games is exactly what spin is all about.

 

[plague311]

"Ralph told the truth", and "Ralph lied" can also be true at the same time. Playing word games is exactly what spin is all about.

But it's not spin if it's an accurate description of what happened, right? Then it's just explaining what happened.

 

[Thermal]

But it's not spin if it's an accurate description of what happened, right? Then it's just explaining what happened.

It's spin if you are trying to steer away from accuracy to nudge the reader towards your desired predetermined impression.

 

[plague311]

It's spin if you are trying to steer away from accuracy to nudge the reader towards your desired predetermined impression.

Ok, but in this case are both statements true?

a) Trump did not call in the National Guard.
b) Trump resisted having the National Guard called in.

If he didn't order anyone to call them in, a subordinate just did it using their own authority, then a) is true.

If he requested that the National Guard not move in and to stand still then b) is true.

Again, I'm not seeing the issue here.

 

[Thermal]

Ok, but in this case are both statements true?

a) Trump did not call in the National Guard.
b) Trump resisted having the National Guard called in.

If he didn't order anyone to call them in, a subordinate just did it using their own authority, then a) is true.

If he requested that the National Guard not move in and to stand still then b) is true.

Again, I'm not seeing the issue here.

It was the context. I said Trump (eventually) called out the Guard, and as an argument, it was said he did not. Well, his office did, via the normal procedures in his administration. But the denial was spin: to make it sound like it didn't happen at all.

The poster knew the flat denial wouldn't keep flying, so reverted to more the truth: Trump delayed for an unconscionsble length of time, but it eventually happened.

The flat denial was spin. All here knew it was substantially a false statement, making it sound as if the Guard was never deployed or...i dunno...they acted of their own volition or whatever alternate interpretation there might be.

But seriously man, this whole thing is circular and going nowhere. Just little snipers and "well technically it's true", which is boring me out of my mind.