Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[Warp12]

'
There's actually a lot of truth in this. If the January 6 enemy force had encountered a mass of BLM and other counter protestors, I suspect that Trump and his Treason of the Clerks behind him would have used the Insurrection Act as an attempt to stay in power. Ultimately, it would not have worked of course but it would have made January 6th to January 20th very different.

That would make a good made-for-TV movie. Sadly, we are talking about reality.

 

[Craig4]

That would make a good made-for-TV movie. Sadly, we are talking about reality.

Yes, something you're incapable of coming to grips with.

Maybe just try being loyal to your nation for a couple of days and see how it feels. You might like actually being an American for a change.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That would make a good made-for-TV movie. Sadly, we are talking about reality.

Trump's people admitted that was the plan Prior to the Coup, I contacted BLM though though a Remember Brianna Taylor group, and told everyone to stay away from DC, on the 6th. Let the DNC know as well, everyone knew to stay away we already won, no reason to give Trump and his followers an excuse for Violence.

 

[Warp12]

Trump's people admitted that was the plan Prior to the Coup, I contacted BLM though though a Remember Brianna Taylor group, and told everyone to stay away from DC, on the 6th. Let the DNC know as well, everyone knew to stay away we already won, no reason to give Trump and his followers an excuse for Violence.

Can you provide a link?

I know that there was talk of it in summer of 2020, with the nationwide "mostly peaceful" protests. But I didn't find anything specifically about 1/6.

Your story of saving the nation sounds like an integral part of the movie I described.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That would make a good made-for-TV movie. Sadly, we are talking about reality.

You can thank me for telling everyone to stay away from DC on the 6th, that's why I contacted the January 6th committee and Homeland Security.
Trump's plans were exposed by the Idiots he trusted.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Can you provide a link?

I know that there was talk of it in summer of 2020, with the nationwide "mostly peaceful" protests. But I didn't find anything specifically about 1/6.

Your story of saving the nation sounds like an integral part of the movie I described.

Jerome Corsi deleted the videos on the 7th as did most of the other people in Question after Trump failed.

Fortunately I sent a link to the video to Benny Thompson,, before it was deleted.
The cover up started on the night of he 6th with People destroying evidence, Quickly.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Corsi is now retired from politics, I wonder why?

https://youtu.be/_DliLeaJ8Eg

 

[Warp12]

You can thank me for telling everyone to stay away from DC on the 6th, that's why I contacted the January 6th committee and Homeland Security.
Trump's plans were exposed by the Idiots he trusted.

Jerome Corsi deleted the videos on the 7th as did most of the other people in Question after Trump failed.

Fortunately I sent a link to the video to Benny Thompson,, before it was deleted.
The cover up started on the night of he 6th with People destroying evidence, Quickly.

Seems totally legit. I'd like to think that you speak for all of the ISF Dems. It would explain a lot.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Seems totally legit. I'd like to think that you speak for all of the ISF Dems. It would explain a lot.

Independent Former Republican, who doesn't Like Liars that now Run the Republicon party.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Seems totally legit. I'd like to think that you speak for all of the ISF Dems. It would explain a lot.

Yes Corsi has been a Russian Useful idiot for Decades, I personally debunked his 500 page book blaming GWB for blowing up the Twin towers and Building 7 with Thermite.
It was RTV Moscow that asked me to talk with Corsi, if I had known at the Time he was connected to infowars I wouldn't have bothered.
I only found that out here on the Forum later, I did know that Dr. Steven E. JONES DIDN'T WANT Corsi or Alex Jones in the 9/11Microspheres debate, because he didn't trust either of those grifters.
So why did Trump have a known Conspiracy theorist, Grifter, Liar, and Racist on his 2016 Campaign?

 

[Upchurch]

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.

And this. This right here is why people are pointing out that you are arguing that it wasn’t a coup because the attempt failed.

If you want to claim you aren’t making a particular argument, stop making that argument.

 

[Thermal]

And this. This right here is why people are pointing out that you are arguing that it wasn’t a coup because the attempt failed.

If you want to claim you aren’t making a particular argument, stop making that argument.

First off, your reply seems to have absolutely no relation to the comment you quoted. I'll take that as you had a fun weekend.

Secondly, you, tyr, and others are really struggling with this. When I say nothing came of it, I mean no actual attempt to seize was made. For reasons unclear, you choose to twist that to mean an attempt *was* made, but that it wasn't successful and therefore nullifies it.

Those are not the words repeatedly typed in front of you. That is your own invention. Can't help you there.

 

[Thermal]

1. If my child (older than a toddler) reaches out to get a cookie, and the cookie is further away than the child can reach, we don't say that the child didn't want the cookie, nor that the child didn't try to get the cookie. I think you might agree with this as an analogy to Jan. 6.

However, I would still instruct my child that they just can't have a cookie anytime they want, they need to ask me, or wait until after dinner, etc. And, depending on the circumstances, I may well be justified in punishing them to a greater or lesser extent.

This means that the mere fact that an attempt cannot succeed doesn't change its ontology, it doesn't change what it is.

If your hypothetical child sat in the living room and *attempted* to reach the cookie in the kitchen via telekinesis, would you say that they made an attempt to seize the cookie?

See, I wouldn't. That is not an attempt to seize. It's just screwing around. That's what I keep saying about the J6ers. It's not that it wasn't successful; it's that they didn't do anything to seize power. Mindless disruption is not *taking* anything; it's a peripheral act.

I'll ask again: does the credibility of an attempt factor into what you consider a coup? Or is just a vague, unorganized idea enough to meet the definition of "seizing power"?

2. Had Pence not counted the votes, thrown the question back to the House, the House throws it back to a few states, and the state legislatures vote the election over to Trump, and then Pence counts enough votes for Trump, would that have been a coup?

If an entirely different scenario with entirely different actors did entirely different things, would things be different, you ask?

Start with the first point. You propose the VP would just flat refuse to certify the count for some reason. Well that's a whole different animal, isn't it? Your hypothetical actually switches his team and implies a conspiracy amount the Congress. I think the analogy is too stretched out, here.

I'm trying to separate out the potential for success of the coup from its other aspects. You're saying the fact it couldn't have succeeded doesn't make it a coup, but I'm wondering if you'd think it was a coup if it had succeed.

I'm not saying the success or failure defines a coup/attempt. I'm saying the evidence I see indicates that no attempt was made to *seize*, so of course nothing came of it.

Do you consider "seizing" to be an action, or a flitting idea? I'm firmly on Team Action.

 

[Random]

First off, your reply seems to have absolutely no relation to the comment you quoted. I'll take that as you had a fun weekend.

Secondly, you, tyr, and others are really struggling with this. When I say nothing came of it, I mean no actual attempt to seize was made. For reasons unclear, you choose to twist that to mean an attempt *was* made, but that it wasn't successful and therefore nullifies it.

Those are not the words repeatedly typed in front of you. That is your own invention. Can't help you there.

But that's just your opinion isn't it? Trump attempted to convince Americans before the election that if he lost, it would be because of fraud. Trump attempted to put pressure on various state government officials to reject or change their Electoral votes. Trump attempted to have Pence go with the Eastman plan. Trump attempted to have an angry mob put pressure on Congress. None of these things are really in dispute.

It just seems that you are looking back at the events of that day, finding a particular line that Trump didn't get a chance to cross, then retroactively declaring that to be the line that would make it a "coup". If I don't share your opinion of what that line is, you will sound like a denialist to me.

 

[Thermal]

But that's just your opinion isn't it? Trump attempted to convince Americans before the election that if he lost, it would be because of fraud. Trump attempted to put pressure on various state government officials to reject or change their Electoral votes. Trump attempted to have Pence go with the Eastman plan. Trump attempted to have an angry mob put pressure on Congress. None of these things are really in dispute.

None of those things are an illegal attempt to seize power either. Which is what we are talking about.

It just seems that you are looking back at the events of that day, finding a particular line that Trump didn't get a chance to cross, then retroactively declaring that to be the line that would make it a "coup". If I don't share your opinion of what that line is, you will sound like a denialist realist to me.

FTFY.

The distinction I am making is that illegally seizing power is a clear action. "Putting pressure" on someone is Jack ****. Making idle veiled threats is Jack ****. And yea verily, a bunch of yahoos storming the castle is a whole host of unAmerican crimes, for which there should be no mercy (there's your "denialist", btw), but still jack **** in terms of a coup/attempt.

What none of the above was, was an actual ATTEMPT TO ILLEGALLY SEIZE POWER. It was sleaze, it was coercive, it was shady AF and reprehensible and cowardly in every way. It just wasn't any kind of credible attempt to actually do what ILLEGAL SEIZURE actually means.

 

[Wudang]

When I say nothing came of it, I mean no actual attempt to seize was made. For reasons unclear, you choose to twist that to mean an attempt *was* made, but that it wasn't successful and therefore nullifies it.

Those are not the words repeatedly typed in front of you. That is your own invention. Can't help you there.

I'm struggling also with what you write. When I read "nothing came of it" I took that to mean "nothing was achieved" not "nothing was attempted".

I also struggle with your insistence that an "attempt" must be a "credible attempt". These people are misguided misinformed idiots. The idea that they might choose a stupid way to attempt to do something doesn't seem a stretch to me. Look at the guy who attempted to make himself invisible when robbing banks by putting lemon juice on his face. It was idiotic but still I regard that as an attempt to be invisible however braindead and ineffective. An attempt to do something, to me, is based on the results a person hopes to achieve by their action.

You seen Lucky Number Slevin?

My father used to say: "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

 

[Thermal]

I'm struggling also with what you write. When I read "nothing came of it" I took that to mean "nothing was achieved" not "nothing was attempted".

I also struggle with your insistence that an "attempt" must be a "credible attempt". These people are misguided misinformed idiots. The idea that they might choose a stupid way to attempt to do something doesn't seem a stretch to me. Look at the guy who attempted to make himself invisible when robbing banks by putting lemon juice on his face. It was idiotic but still I regard that as an attempt to be invisible however braindead and ineffective. An attempt to do something, to me, is based on the results a person hopes to achieve by their action.

If some drunk at a bar jumps up and declares himself Emperor of Scotland, has he made a coup attempt?

If a mob of football fans trash city hall, then take some selfies and wander off, have they attempted to undemocratically wrest power from the government?

Seizing is an action verb with a clear meaning. Power, in this context, has the clear meaning of political power. While the Trumpsters did a lot of unforgivable things, they didn't attempt a coup. And yes, I think the credibility of the threat factors in. Just for dignity's sake, if nothing else.

Come to think of it, that might be why I'm digging in so hard on this. Calling this bufoonish slobbery a legitimate coup attempt makes them sound more intelligent than they are. Perhaps it's just a visceral rejection of the suggestion that they have human intelligence.

Nonetheless, I'll keep holding them to a higher standard of punishment than most here, without affording them the dignity of a political aim. They are just imbeciles being imbeciles.

You seen Lucky Number Slevin?

Eta: actually no, so I may be missing the context. Sounds like that's actually out of the Hitler playbook, though: Keep repeating a lie till people start to believe it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If some drunk at a bar jumps up and declares himself Emperor of Scotland, has he made a coup attempt?

If a mob of football fans trash city hall, then take some selfies and wander off, have they attempted to undemocratically wrest power from the government?

Seizing is an action verb with a clear meaning. Power, in this context, has the clear meaning of political power. While the Trumpsters did a lot of unforgivable things, they didn't attempt a coup. And yes, I think the credibility of the threat factors in. Just for dignity's sake, if nothing else.

Come to think of it, that might be why I'm digging in so hard on this. Calling this bufoonish slobbery a legitimate coup attempt makes them sound more intelligent than they are. Perhaps it's just a visceral rejection of the suggestion that they have human intelligence.

Nonetheless, I'll keep holding them to a higher standard of punishment than most here, without affording them the dignity of a political aim. They are just imbeciles being imbeciles.



Eta: actually no, so I may be missing the context. Sounds like that's actually out of the Hitler playbook, though: Keep repeating a lie till people start to believe it.

What other kind of a Coup did you expect from Donald John Trump, Jerome Corsi, Rodger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, and the other Conspiracy theorist involved in the Bufoon attempt?
Intent obviously points to an Intended Coup By Idiots without Very many Real Live Brain Cells.

 

[Paul2]

If your hypothetical child sat in the living room and *attempted* to reach the cookie in the kitchen via telekinesis, would you say that they made an attempt to seize the cookie?

See, I wouldn't. That is not an attempt to seize. It's just screwing around. That's what I keep saying about the J6ers. It's not that it wasn't successful; it's that they didn't do anything to seize power. Mindless disruption is not *taking* anything; it's a peripheral act.

I'll ask again: does the credibility of an attempt factor into what you consider a coup? Or is just a vague, unorganized idea enough to meet the definition of "seizing power"?

I reject your comparison of something that would break the laws of physics - telekinesis - with (for the sake of argument) the unlikelihood of the Jan 6 attackers succeeding.

If an entirely different scenario with entirely different actors did entirely different things, would things be different, you ask?

Start with the first point. You propose the VP would just flat refuse to certify the count for some reason. Well that's a whole different animal, isn't it? Your hypothetical actually switches his team and implies a conspiracy amount the Congress. I think the analogy is too stretched out, here.



I'm not saying the success or failure defines a coup/attempt. I'm saying the evidence I see indicates that no attempt was made to *seize*, so of course nothing came of it.

Do you consider "seizing" to be an action, or a flitting idea? I'm firmly on Team Action.

My hypothetical is trying to set a baseline as well as find an area of agreement. Can you just answer my question: would that hypothetical count as a coup, in your opinion?

 

[Random]

None of those things are an illegal attempt to seize power either. Which is what we are talking about.



FTFY.

The distinction I am making is that illegally seizing power is a clear action. "Putting pressure" on someone is Jack ****. Making idle veiled threats is Jack ****. And yea verily, a bunch of yahoos storming the castle is a whole host of unAmerican crimes, for which there should be no mercy (there's your "denialist", btw), but still jack **** in terms of a coup/attempt.

What none of the above was, was an actual ATTEMPT TO ILLEGALLY SEIZE POWER. It was sleaze, it was coercive, it was shady AF and reprehensible and cowardly in every way. It just wasn't any kind of credible attempt to actually do what ILLEGAL SEIZURE actually means.

Putting pressure on and threatening government officials to have them perform illegal actions seems illegal to me. If those actions are intended to seize power, then it seems like an illegal attempt to seize power to me. Telling thousands of people that the 2020 election is stolen and that they should march on the Capitol to prevent it seems like Incitement to Riot to me, which is also illegal.