• 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.
And of course, things not going according to plan is not the same thing as not having one and, thus, showing intent to stage a coup. In the same article Thermal posted:
The Guardian revealed last week that sometime between the late evening of 5 January and the early hours of 6 January, after Pence declined to go ahead with such plans, Trump then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely.
Click to expand...
The plan doesn't work without Pence's cooperation, so Trump & Co had to scramble to work around Pence to disrupt the certification.

So, we have a Plan A and an apparent Plan B. We have a violent attack on a government body and building. We have seizure of Senate floor and attempted seizure of the House floor. We have disrupted and delayed certification of the election (which are steps toward the primary goal).

What part are we missing?
 
Thermal said:
Answer your own question. What did they do? Trashed the joint. Then what? Went home, and Congress went back to work. The mob was not shot or arrested. They were not encumbered at all, and many of the silly **** wits still aren't, and roamed the streets all year.

Goals have steps taken to achieve them. A football team wants to get the ball across the goal line. If they just attack the other team on the bench, that does not accomplish, or even take steps towards, that goal. It's just mayhem, because that's what violent mobs do.

I don't believe that anyone here is so stupid as to not understand what I am saying. What the J6ers did should have them locked up for years, and no pleas accepted. They interfered with our electoral process, and trashed the Seat of Democracy. That's unforgivable, and profoundly unAmerican. But it's not a coup, simply by definition.
Click to expand...

It ultimately wasn't a successful coup. It absolutely was an attempt at one, and was frighteningly close to being successful.

And anyone who describes the events of January 6th by saying "What did they do? Trashed the joint. Then what? Went home, and Congress went back to work." has zero credibility to criticize how other people describe it.

People died. 140 police officers were injured. 4 committed suicide afterwards, and many more still suffer from PTSD.

Simply saying they trashed the place and then went home isn't much better than calling it a tourist visit.
 
Upchurch said:
The communications going around before the attack on the capitol suggests otherwise. How do you account for that, or do you only pick the facts that fit your theory?
Click to expand...

Well, I've only answered this about a dozen times, but what the hell:

The "communications going around" appear to be idle pipe dreams. Even the PowerPoint, which is highly damning, didn't seem to actually make the rounds. Seems it got kicked off and immediately fizzled.

Or did I miss where the Congress was addressed with tales of foreign interference and Trump declaring a State of Emergency and all?

My argument...over and over and over...is that there was no actual attempt. Bantering, yes. PowerPoint, yes. A bunch of rabid dogs riled up and pointed at the Capitol, yes. But that is not, by any definition, a credible coup attempt. Its a bunch of jagoffs who all really really wanted to stay in power, but had no means, ability, sane plan, and absolutely not the sheer will and balls to actually attempt it.

This does not undermine the seriousness of what happened, or the culpability of those who were disjointedly sharing the fantasy.
 
Thermal said:
My argument...over and over and over...is that there was no actual attempt.
Click to expand...
Yes, and look at how many actual attempts you have to ignore to maintain that argument. Again and again and again, you just ignore the evidence and what actually happened. Why is that?
 
Thermal said:
I just looked at the two reposts you linked to. Do tell: what was I wrong about? That Trump was a sniveling coward, and this was his last blast of the clown show before he slithered away (the first one)?

(Hint: that's exactly what happened.)

Or the second, where I said it was a Dildo Storm of nitwits, in for an unpleasant acquaintance with our legal system?

(Another hint: that's exactly what happened).

Let's compare to your response, where you were either doing #1 or #3 in your pants when you say:

The coup is upon us.

Whadaya think, scooter? Still think the coup was upon us? If so, you're pretty much alone in that fantasy. Even posters here have backpedaled it to an "incompetent attempted coup".

Seems you alone still think it actually happened.
Click to expand...

Wrong! 'm not a prolific poster hereabouts, but I frequently enough express my worry about this ongoing preparation the GOP is undertaking toward its illegitimate seizure of power. The danger is real. The US and A is currently sleepwalking into its own brand of authoritarianism/Fascism. It's already assumed shades of an oligarchy.
 
Thermal said:
My argument...over and over and over...is that there was no actual attempt. Bantering, yes. PowerPoint, yes. A bunch of rabid dogs riled up and pointed at the Capitol, yes. But that is not, by any definition, a credible coup attempt. Its a bunch of jagoffs who all really really wanted to stay in power, but had no means, ability, sane plan, and absolutely not the sheer will and balls to actually attempt it.
Click to expand...

What an absolutely stunning denial of reality.

You might get a little bit of traction arguing that is was an unsuccessful coup and therefore not really a coup, but to argue there was "no actual attempt"?

Truly breath-taking.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Yes, and look at how many actual attempts you have to ignore to maintain that argument. Again and again and again, you just ignore the evidence and what actually happened. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because I understand the difference between attempting to do something and talking about it.

Lets ask you yet again: the PowerPoint. Which elements were attempted? Start with adressing Congress about the foriegn interference and Trump declaring a state of emergency, if you please. And please stop ducking the question.
 
Upchurch said:
Yes, it is, isn't it?

Clearly, this article supports Thermal's argument that Trump didn't have a plan to stage a coup. /s
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. The Guardian's article title writers are truly the authority here.

And we descend again into the depths of stupid.
 
Thermal said:
Because I understand the difference between attempting to do something and talking about it.
Click to expand...
Do you? We pointed out several actual actions that were taken and you appear to have ignored them all.

Thermal said:
Lets ask you yet again: the PowerPoint. Which elements were attempted? Start with adressing Congress about the foriegn interference and Trump declaring a state of emergency, if you please. And please stop ducking the question.
Click to expand...

You didn't actually read my reply, did you? It didn't fit your preferred view, so you ignored it, huh. Is this your new brand?
 
Thermal said:
And we descend again into the depths of stupid.
Click to expand...

This, from the person who cited an article titled "Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coup" as evidence that there was no plan to stage a coup.
 
Upchurch said:
Do you? We pointed out several actual actions that were taken and you appear to have ignored them all.
Click to expand...

You have not. A lot of insisting, but no actual attempting.

You didn't actually read my reply, did you? It didn't fit your preferred view, so you ignored it, huh. Is this your new brand?
Click to expand...

I did. I'll give you a dollar if you can show where you answered the question. Use quotes, if you please.

You duck anything requiring you to pony up. So let's go. Pony up. Show where the PowerPoint was attempted to be implemented.
 
For Thermal to ignore:

Upchurch said:
And of course, things not going according to plan is not the same thing as not having one and, thus, showing intent to stage a coup. In the same article Thermal posted:
​
The plan doesn't work without Pence's cooperation, so Trump & Co had to scramble to work around Pence to disrupt the certification.

So, we have a Plan A and an apparent Plan B. We have a violent attack on a government body and building. We have seizure of Senate floor and attempted seizure of the House floor. We have disrupted and delayed certification of the election (which are steps toward the primary goal).

What part are we missing?
Click to expand...
 
Thermal said:
Because I understand the difference between attempting to do something and talking about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe talking about it gets 'conspiracy to' added to the beginning of the charge sheet.

I think that's pretty well established in law.
 
Upchurch said:
For Thermal to ignore:
Click to expand...

The question repeatedly put before you is (and try not to answer a different one):

What parts of the PowerPoint were attempted?

The answer, by anyone with a shred of honesty, is:

Absolutely none of it.

See how easy this is?
 
Thermal said:
The question repeatedly put before you is (and try not to answer a different one):

What parts of the PowerPoint were attempted?

The answer, by anyone with a shred of honesty, is:

Absolutely none of it.

See how easy this is?
Click to expand...
Okay, let's be honest. By your own source, why wasn't it attempted? Hint: it wasn't because they didn't plan to.
 
Okay, no coup.

Just a plan to attempt a coup if a set of favourable circumstances were to arise.

Much better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom