Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[The Great Zaganza]

Of course not! You seize the ******* power undemocratically.

That's what a coup is at it's most elementary. It's illegal. it is undemocratic. It is a seizing or wresting of power, not a ******* legal argument that it is not even theoretically possible to win!

I'm sorry man, I can't do this. I don't come into USA Pol often because of dickhead arguments like this. See ya on some other thread.

Did he win the Election?

Yes or No?

 

[Upchurch]

This is the funniest part of the conversation,: when Thermal or whoever declares, “For it to have been a coup, Trump would have to…” and then proceeds to reiterate what Trump has actually done. We both agree and I’m still somehow wrong.

 

[Thermal]

That is precisely what what a coup d'etat is.

A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/); French for "blow of state"), usually shortened to coup, (also known as an overthrow) is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers.​

What on Earth have you convinced yourself that a "coup" means?

Please take a moment to consider the word "seizure". Perhaps contrast it to the meanings of "submit frivolous court filings and comply with their refusals", "make empty threats", ."mindlessly vandalize the Capitol and fight police with no actual plan or goal", and all the other things on the table that...and this is important...didn't even attempt to actually seize anything at all.

 

[Thermal]

Did he win the Election?

Yes or No?

Yes. Yes he lost. With my vote against him both times, in fact.

And despite all the stamping of his little orange feet, he vacated the Oval Office as he was required to by our process. He seized nothing. He *attempted* to seize absolutely nothing.

This is exactly what I mean about descending to dickhead argumentation.

 

[Thermal]

This is the funniest part of the conversation,: when Thermal or whoever declares, “For it to have been a coup, Trump would have to…” and then proceeds to reiterate what Trump has actually done. We both agree and I’m still somehow wrong.

Its a "words have meanings" thingy. Some of us, for example, comprehend the difference between a seizure of power and a whiny prolonged tantrum.

 

[Upchurch]

Please take a moment to consider the word "seizure". Perhaps contrast it to the meanings of "submit frivolous court filings and comply with their refusals", "make empty threats", ."mindlessly vandalize the Capitol and fight police with no actual plan or goal", and all the other things on the table that...and this is important...didn't even attempt to actually seize anything at all.

They literally took, or “seized” if you prefer, the Senate floor.

I have no idea what you think an “empty threat” is. Sitting on a barstool talking about killing the politicians on TV is an empty threat. Showing up where those politicians actually are with weapons and getting into he building is no longer an empty threat. They had means, motive, and were just shy of the opportunity, thanks to security, but only just by some accounts.


ETA: here’s the thing, every requirement you’ve come up with for to be a “real” coup, they either did or tried to do. I think we all can agree that being bad or incompetent at something doesn’t mean you can’t have tried. You need to take a breath and make sure you aren’t relying on some assumptions that just aren’t true.

 

[Upchurch]

Its a "words have meanings" thingy. Some of us, for example, comprehend the difference between a seizure of power and a whiny prolonged tantrum.

Words do have meaning, and you are stretching them to the breaking point. Most of your own arguments work against what you’re trying to say. I have no idea why.

 

[Thermal]

They literally took, or “seized” if you prefer, the Senate floor.

Ok. They "seized" the Senate floor. This is where we can suss out what a seizure of power means. Bear with me here.

What did they do, having "seized" the floor? Did they declare themselves the new Governing body of the United States?

Did they declare themselves Representatives of, or seat-warmers for, the new Emporer or dictator or whatever crazy-ass thing you think?

I'll give you the temporary seizing of the hardwood of the Senate if it makes you happy. Now, finish the definition: what power did they seize (or attempted same) once the wooden area was assumed?

No more punk-ass vascillation and changing the subject. What power did they attempt to/seize when their conquest reached its unobstructed fruition? The power undemocratically wrested is rather the only important part of a coup.

I have no idea what you think an “empty threat” is.

Trump threatening the GA Gov. I believe a normal person would have absorbed that idea by now. I've repeated it quite often and quite clearly.

Sitting on a barstool talking about killing the politicians on TV is an empty threat. Showing up where those politicians actually are with weapons and getting into he building is no longer an empty threat. They had means, motive, and were just shy of the opportunity, thanks to security, but only just by some accounts.

Are you restricting this to just the J6ers now? I thought the argument was that the coup was Many, not just J6?

Whatever. They obviously did not have the means to wrest power from the US Government. That is too profoundly stupid to even entertain.

They did not have the motive to do anything of consequence. Its arguable that they did, in that they wanted their orange guy to stay in office. I'm not sure it can be argued that it was sufficient motivation to overthrow a global superpower. As they did nothing further, I would conclude their motivation was profoundly minimal and insufficient for the magnitude of the goal.

What was their opportunity? You said they already "seized" the Senate floor. So....was that the accomplishment?

The opportunity, as it were, sat unseized, if power was the goal.

 

[Thermal]

Words do have meaning, and you are stretching them to the breaking point. Most of your own arguments work against what you’re trying to say. I have no idea why.

More bald assertion. Ya boring.

"Seizure of Power" is not so arcane a concept that you should be wrestling with it this long. There is "seizure", "of" (common preposition), and "power".

Which word or words perplex you so?

 

[tyr_13]

Ok. They "seized" the Senate floor. This is where we can suss out what a seizure of power means. Bear with me here.

What did they do, having "seized" the floor? Did they declare themselves the new Governing body of the United States?

Did they declare themselves Representatives of, or seat-warmers for, the new Emporer or dictator or whatever crazy-ass thing you think?

I'll give you the temporary seizing of the hardwood of the Senate if it makes you happy. Now, finish the definition: what power did they seize (or attempted same) once the wooden area was assumed?

No more punk-ass vascillation and changing the subject. What power did they attempt to/seize when their conquest reached its unobstructed fruition? The power undemocratically wrested is rather the only important part of a coup.



Trump threatening the GA Gov. I believe a normal person would have absorbed that idea by now. I've repeated it quite often and quite clearly.



Are you restricting this to just the J6ers now? I thought the argument was that the coup was Many, not just J6?

Whatever. They obviously did not have the means to wrest power from the US Government. That is too profoundly stupid to even entertain.

They did not have the motive to do anything of consequence. Its arguable that they did, in that they wanted their orange guy to stay in office. I'm not sure it can be argued that it was sufficient motivation to overthrow a global superpower. As they did nothing further, I would conclude their motivation was profoundly minimal and insufficient for the magnitude of the goal.

What was their opportunity? You said they already "seized" the Senate floor. So....was that the accomplishment?

The opportunity, as it were, sat unseized, if power was the goal.

This is an explicit argument that not succeeding means it wasn't a coup, something you also explicitly said you were not making.

Your argument is empty. They attempted to seize the power to install the president and thus the power of the president. Trump et al attempted illegal means through the courts (you can't actually present a case in bad faith lawfully), through illegal legislative moves (the VP cannot lawfully refuse to certify), and through intimidation and violence.

This 'punk ass' plain talk isn't negated by your say so. You have no authority regarding this. You're just not wrong, you're trivially wrong.

 

[Paul2]

Its a "words have meanings" thingy. Some of us, for example, comprehend the difference between a seizure of power and a whiny prolonged tantrum.

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Paul2]

Ok. They "seized" the Senate floor. This is where we can suss out what a seizure of power means. Bear with me here.

What did they do, having "seized" the floor? Did they declare themselves the new Governing body of the United States?

Did they declare themselves Representatives of, or seat-warmers for, the new Emporer or dictator or whatever crazy-ass thing you think?

I'll give you the temporary seizing of the hardwood of the Senate if it makes you happy. Now, finish the definition: what power did they seize (or attempted same) once the wooden area was assumed?
No more punk-ass vascillation and changing the subject. What power did they attempt to/seize when their conquest reached its unobstructed fruition? The power undemocratically wrested is rather the only important part of a coup.



Trump threatening the GA Gov. I believe a normal person would have absorbed that idea by now. I've repeated it quite often and quite clearly.



Are you restricting this to just the J6ers now? I thought the argument was that the coup was Many, not just J6?

Whatever. They obviously did not have the means to wrest power from the US Government. That is too profoundly stupid to even entertain.

They did not have the motive to do anything of consequence. Its arguable that they did, in that they wanted their orange guy to stay in office. I'm not sure it can be argued that it was sufficient motivation to overthrow a global superpower. As they did nothing further, I would conclude their motivation was profoundly minimal and insufficient for the magnitude of the goal.

What was their opportunity? You said they already "seized" the Senate floor. So....was that the accomplishment?

The opportunity, as it were, sat unseized, if power was the goal.

The power to count the votes from the electoral college and declare the winner of the election.

 

[Thermal]

This is an explicit argument that not succeeding means it wasn't a coup, something you also explicitly said you were not making.

No. For the umpteenth time, *NO*. My argument has clearly been that they did not attempt to do *anything* in terms of seizing power.

They attempted to seize the power to install the president and thus the power of the president.

They attempted nothing of the kind. The J6ers disrupted the certification temporarily. None had any idea what do do after accomplishing this, so they wandered slowly home.

This is important. Please jot it down because I am bored with repeating it: they did not actually attempt to do anything, much less overthrow a global superpower. They chased a car. They caught it. Then they didn't know what to do. So they went home.

That is not an attempt to seize power from the mightiest nation on the planet by any convoluted definition.

This 'punk ass' plain talk isn't negated by your say so. You have no authority regarding this. You're just not wrong, you're trivially wrong.

You're right. The meaning of the ******* words do.

 

[Lurch]

Oh god another one.

Nothing failed on this end. Unless you think baldly asserting over and over that it was totally a coup/attempt is an argumentative victory? Argumentum ad broken recordium ftw.

Christ, at it's most basic, fundamental level, it could not even be a coup. Trump was still in power. Even a lame duck on the outgo is still in the driver's seat till the inauguration of the President-elect. We need a new term for self-couping if you are going to insist on that angle.

A 'self coup?' Jeebus on a stick. While still in power is the best time to undertake actions to keep in power. You suggesting the only way to get a coup on is to wait until out of office, THEN get the ball rolling? You really must think your audience has just squirmed out of the cabbage patch.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes. Yes he lost. With my vote against him both times, in fact.

And despite all the stamping of his little orange feet, he vacated the Oval Office as he was required to by our process. He seized nothing. He *attempted* to seize absolutely nothing.

This is exactly what I mean about descending to dickhead argumentation.

Wrong.
He vacated before Biden kicked him out.
But until then, he used illegal and other means to unconstitutionality stay in power.
We can't wait for treason to succeed before calling it treason - because then it's the new Government.

 

[Thermal]

The power to count the votes from the electoral college and declare the winner of the election.

That's what you call a seizure of power? Seriously?

If one interrupts a judge when he is speaking, have you seized judicial powers?

 

[Lurch]

This latching onto, in isolation, the actions and inaction of the mob that got into the Capitol as determinative of whether a coup was attempted is to lose sight of the bigger play underway. Those who directed the storming from the too had hoped to cause serious disruption that would enable a plausible rejection of the election results, putting the decision to the House, which due to a GOP majority would ensure Dump's clinging to power. The morons milling about didn't have to know bupkus; they were the stooges that were manipulated to sow the chaos.

If the mob had got hold of the box containing the electoral college votes--which nearly was left behind in the evacuation of the chamber--that could have gone a long way to realizing the plan. At the very least, it would have resulted in one hell of a Constitutional crisis. With the resulting delay in certification posing all manner of points of leverage for nefarious skullduggery to be engaged in.

It was a closer run thing than most Americans appreciate.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Trump Plan was to prevent the certification of the vote that day. That would have been a technical breach of the certification rules, opening the door for more debate, shenanigans and litigation. With enough fuss, the Supreme Court would have had to step in, and history suggests that the SC will pick a Republican over a Democrat every time.

That day, and in the months before, Trump did everything to make this happen.

 

[Thermal]

Wrong.
He vacated before Biden kicked him out.
But until then, he used illegal and other means to unconstitutionality stay in power.
We can't wait for treason to succeed before calling it treason - because then it's the new Government.

This. This right here is what I mean about unhinged irrational discourse in this subforum.

I present Exhibit A: a presumably straight-faced argument that Trump remained in power illegally and had to be somehow forced out.

No one would believe me if I told them a lucid adult made this argument.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not my fault that you have no grasp of politics or history, Thermal.

Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

-John Harington, English - Writer 1561 - 1612