• 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.
Thermal said:
My point, should you trouble yourself to think about it for a split second, was that you claimed there was three...count them, three...retired generals who thought it was a coup. The clear implication was that being a retired general was more credible or authoritative.

My counterpoint was that here are 87 retired generals who are clearly cuckoo as a clock. Simply being a retired general does not give additional credibility or authority in this matter.
Click to expand...

Flynn, anyone?
 
Warp12 said:
Yeah, he was so unpopular that only 74 million voted for him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Millions die from their own stupidity every year on this planet, so someone voting for an Insane Conspiracy theorist does not surprise me at all, the man openly lied to you. Several times and still you believe him.
 
Thermal said:
My point, should you trouble yourself to think about it for a split second, was that you claimed there was three...count them, three...retired generals who thought it was a coup. The clear implication was that being a retired general was more credible or authoritative.

My counterpoint was that here are 87 retired generals who are clearly cuckoo as a clock. Simply being a retired general does not give additional credibility or authority in this matter.
Click to expand...
Seeing as this is essentially a debate about semantics, how people use words matters. It matters that Generals who are sober, and who have never spoken out politically, and who have historically voted GOP, and who are presumably knowledgeable about history and conflict, view this as a coup attempt.

Mind you, this is lesser data point. Let's not forget that you're at odds with dictionary definitions.
 
"I'm not wrong if I demand the discussion always stay at defining exactly how I'm wrong AND I argue with every definition, definitions which I am also wrong about!"
 
varwoche said:
Seeing as this is essentially a debate about semantics, how people use words matters. It matters that Generals who are sober, and who have never spoken out politically, and who have historically voted GOP, and who are presumably knowledgeable about history and conflict, view this as a coup attempt.
Click to expand...

Sober and knowledgeable? I don't think you know them personally, so what you are really saying is that you agree with them, so they are more credible. There's a term for that.

Mind you, this is lesser data point. Let's not forget that you're at odds with dictionary definitions.
Click to expand...

No, and we have gone over that ad nauseum. The dictionary definition consistently says "seize or wrest" power. What these guys have done is close, but fell short. How am I sure? No one has been charged with sedition.

It really is that simple. As you say, words have meanings. If you are right, then Congress and the DOJ are failing to prosecute a coup. That would make them culpable in conspiracy, no? Aiding and abetting the enemy?

But seriously, this is boring me out of my mind. I've had my say, and we are down to repetition. What they did was, IMO, worse and more foreboding than a coup, yet you keep wanting to treat my argument as if it is somehow excusing them. See ya on the next one.
 
Thermal said:
Sober and knowledgeable? I don't think you know them personally, so what you are really saying is that you agree with them, so they are more credible. There's a term for that.







No, and we have gone over that ad nauseum. The dictionary definition consistently says "seize or wrest" power. What these guys have done is close, but fell short. How am I sure? No one has been charged with sedition.


It really is that simple. As you say, words have meanings. If you are right, then Congress and the DOJ are failing to prosecute a coup. That would make them culpable in conspiracy, no? Aiding and abetting the enemy?



But seriously, this is boring me out of my mind. I've had my say, and we are down to repetition. What they did was, IMO, worse and more foreboding than a coup, yet you keep wanting to treat my argument as if it is somehow excusing them. See ya on the next one.
Click to expand...

Do you think the "rule of law" in the U.S. is such that it is judiciously and rigorously enforced against powerful individuals without any political consideration or influence?

This extends unto the political overtones of groups, as well. Some protests can't have a single person step off the sidewalk, some can brandish (and use) weapons with apparent impunity.

Some may be briefly apprehended for public disturbance, others face terrorism charges for the same basic actions.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Do you think the "rule of law" in the U.S. is such that it is judiciously and rigorously enforced against powerful individuals without any political consideration or influence?
Click to expand...

I watched the sitting President get impeached twice, and a president before him once. Yes, we will go after powerful people without batting an eye.

This extends unto the political overtones of groups, as well. Some protests can't have a single person step off the sidewalk, some can brandish (and use) weapons with apparent impunity.

Some may be briefly apprehended for public disturbance, others face terrorism charges for the same basic actions.
Click to expand...

Right, but to suggest that one of the most serious crimes against the Union would be swept under the rug is just silly. The J6ers and who are asserted here to be part of a coup are not politically significant. Julian Assange is being chased down for espionage over published documents, arguably a far lesser crime than sedition.

Asserting that we couldn't try a coup attempter because it might be embarrasing or whatever is beyond ridiculous. If the DOJ and Dem controlled Congress thought it even was likely seditious, they would be bound to prosecute this most grave offense.
 
Thermal said:
I watched the sitting President get impeached twice, and a president before him once. Yes, we will go after powerful people without batting an eye.
Click to expand...

You just cited more examples of special people not being punished. They didn't face criminal liability at all, either (your own purported form of evidence for a crime).


Right, but to suggest that one of the most serious crimes against the Union would be swept under the rug is just silly. The J6ers and who are asserted here to be part of a coup are not politically significant. Julian Assange is being chased down for espionage over published documents, arguably a far lesser crime than sedition.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're kinda helping me make my point about double standards.


Asserting that we couldn't try a coup attempter because it might be embarrasing or whatever is beyond ridiculous. If the DOJ and Dem controlled Congress thought it even was likely seditious, they would be bound to prosecute this most grave offense.
Click to expand...
The Dem controlled congress is fulfilling its oversight function, but can't do anything about criminal charges.

The DOJ, despite lofty pronouncements, is hopelessly political.
 
Last edited:
One of the Proud Boys insurrectionists just pleaded guilty to conspiracy in a plea deal.

In one of the most prominent cases against far-right groups that the Justice Department alleges planned to storm the US Capitol on January 6, a New York member of the Proud Boys has pleaded guilty to felony charges, including conspiracy.

Matthew Greene, 34, of Syracuse, New York, is the first Proud Boy charged in the alleged conspiracy to plead guilty, and could provide vital information to the government's investigation as he's expected to cooperate. He pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding.
Greene could face up to 51 months in prison according to the plea deal read aloud during a hearing in federal court in Washington, DC, and he agreed to pay $2,000 in restitution for damage done to the Capitol building.
He is the first member of the Proud Boys to potentially give prosecutors information about his organization. Multiple members of the Oath Keepers have been cooperating with the government for months.
Click to expand...
 
I drove by San Jose State U a few months ago and saw two forklifts (or were they golf carts?) moving a soccer goal outside the stadium in the middle of the street, bringing it somewhere. I should have snapped a photo.
 
I’ve not been following the story closely enough.
Did folks at the very top exchange information about this attempted overthrow of a legitimately elected government through emails and social media?
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
I’ve not been following the story closely enough.
Did folks at the very top exchange information about this attempted overthrow of a legitimately elected government through emails and social media?
Click to expand...

I mean, yeah, but the Senate investigation is finding more concrete evidence.
 
Ladewig said:
I’ve not been following the story closely enough.
Did folks at the very top exchange information about this attempted overthrow of a legitimately elected government through emails and social media?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but no one said "I hereby declare our efforts this day to be a coup, for we are wholly responsible" so there's still room for ambiguity.
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ectoral-win/ar-AASc0DQ?ocid=msedgntp#comments

Navarro lays the plan out again.

The most interesting part to me isn't that he thinks this is exonerating, but it's that he was surprised the crowd turned violent. That morning, they seemed some peaceful he said. If only there was some event, some motivator, for the crowd to want to walk down to the capitol building and try and force Mike Pence to decertify the election result. Some kind of Trump card, if you will. Although, I'm as confused as Navarro as to what that could be.

Again, preemptively, nobody is accusing these people of being smart
 
dirtywick said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ectoral-win/ar-AASc0DQ?ocid=msedgntp#comments

Navarro lays the plan out again.

The most interesting part to me isn't that he thinks this is exonerating, but it's that he was surprised the crowd turned violent. That morning, they seemed some peaceful he said. If only there was some event, some motivator, for the crowd to want to walk down to the capitol building and try and force Mike Pence to decertify the election result. Some kind of Trump card, if you will. Although, I'm as confused as Navarro as to what that could be.

Again, preemptively, nobody is accusing these people of being smart
Click to expand...

He's just so damn proud of his and the others' plan to undermine our democracy by ending our history of uninterrupted and peaceful transfers of power. SOB.
 
VP Harris speaking today:

Certain dates echo throughout history," Harris said. "Including dates that instantly remind all who have lived them where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendar but a place in our collective memory. Dec. 7, 1941, Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 6, 2021."
Click to expand...


Where were you when Viking Man stormed the Capitol? LMAO.

Comparing this to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is insulting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom