• 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:
No, and I think I have clarified this several times. I'm not evuating in hindsight. I am pointing out that, as I see it, they had no objective, least of all a coup attempt.

I am perfectly ok with the idea that you can rile up dogs and turn them loose, and the dogs have no idea at all what they are supposed to do beyond general mayhem. That sits fine with me.

Many here seem to think that there has to be a clear reason and motivation for such action. A coup is a perfectly plausible explanation. But I think Trump was inciting them for the sake of his ego, not to actually *do* anything. Recall that he beat feet right after saying he was going with them.

I see January 6 as a speech that Trump thought would result in some kind of dramatic protest on the Capitol steps, mostly as an ego boost for the Electoral Loser. I think he was just as shocked as anyone by what happened, and stared numbly at the TV as it unfolded. The J6ers themselves had no idea at all what they were doing. That's why I bring up the hindsight view: their wandering around taking selfies shows that they never really planned anything. Didn't give it much thought. Bombs not detonated and guns not fired show this as well. It was a big role play that they had no intention at all of following through with. Posers are a thing. Guys showing their buddies what hard-asses they are by carrying guns have a habit of not firing them.



Used as an ego boost, I'd agree. I don't think that actually attacking the Capitol Building was forethought. I think Trump underestimated just how unAmerican his lackeys were.
Click to expand...

See all the highlighted parts? Those are all assumptions and/or opinions, not facts.

What ARE facts are:

1. Trump had been, and still is, telling his supporters the election was stolen.

2. Before the attack on the Capitol, Trump and his cronies were inciting his supporter with the following:

a) "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," (Yes, I know...he said to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" but that was calculated plausible deniability island among a sea of otherwise incendiary rhetoric)

b) "Turn your cameras please and show what's really happening out here because these people are not going to take it any longer. They're not going to take it any longer."

c) "We took them by surprise and this year they rigged an election. They rigged it like they've never rigged an election before.

d) "All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.

e) "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election."

f) "What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago, to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn't go to 66, we went to 75 million, and they say we lost. We didn't lose."

g) "And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It's a disgrace. There's never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we've been going through in this country. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace."

h) "We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen.

(Audience chants: "Fight for Trump.")

Thank you."

i) "And Rudy, you did a great job. He's got guts. You know what? He's got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He's got guts. He fights, he fights."

J) "And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: "Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage." And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen.

k) "We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy."

l) "But you know, you know, when you see this and when you see what's happening. Number one, they all say, "Sir, we'll never let it happen again." I said, "That's good. But what about eight weeks ago?" You know they try and get you to go.

They said, "Sir, in four years, you're guaranteed." I said: "I'm not interested right now. Do me a favor, go back eight weeks. I want to go back eight weeks. Let's go back eight weeks."

m. 'Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

And then there was Giuliani saying "Let's have trial by combat!" and Mo Brooks telling them “start taking down names and kicking ass.” If Mo thought it was going to be a peaceful protest then why was he wearing body armor? Because he "was warned on Monday that there might be risks associated with the next few days. And as a consequence of those warnings, I did not go to my condo. Instead, I slept on the floor of my office. And when I gave my speech at the Ellipse, I was wearing body armor. That’s why I was wearing that nice little windbreaker, to cover up the body armor.”

So tell us all again, Thermal, how this was just all about Trump's ego and he really "didn't want them to do anything". Stop making excuses for that POS.
 
Trebuchet said:
Trump was taken aback and stared numbly at the TV because it wasn't working and was making him look bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah :rolleyes:, he was really upset that's why he went back down there to tell them to stop, didn't tell them they were "special" and wasn't "enjoying watching his supporters assault the US Capitol" as some of his former aides.

Isn't it pathetic what some people can talk themselves into believing rather than admit Trump is a POS?
 
Thermal said:
I'm being serious. One of that Cline Center criteria for being considered a coup/attempt is credibility. How do you guys see anything about this as a credible threat to seize power?

I'm not being rhetorical. I'd like to know what you see that I don't, even if we disagree. It looks to me like swooning and pearl clutching, more than sober assessment.
Click to expand...

I get where you are coming from, myself. It's not like they were going to somehow reach the "Bridge" of the Enterprise Capital where they could place Trump in the captains seat and claim control of the starship country with any authority whatsoever.
There were a great many very dangerous things they could have done there that day, that thankfully didn't happen, but outright taking control of the government wasn't one of them.
 
Thermal said:
I'm being serious. One of that Cline Center criteria for being considered a coup/attempt is credibility. How do you guys see anything about this as a credible threat to seize power?

I'm not being rhetorical. I'd like to know what you see that I don't, even if we disagree. It looks to me like swooning and pearl clutching, more than sober assessment.
Click to expand...
When the person leading the coup is POTUS, that makes it a credible threat by default.
 
Thermal said:
No, and I think I have clarified this several times. I'm not evuating in hindsight. I am pointing out that, as I see it, they had no objective, least of all a coup attempt.
Click to expand...
It's crystal clear that when Trump threatened Raffensperger with repercussions lest he "find 11,780 votes" that Trump had an objective.
 
varwoche said:
When the person leading the coup is POTUS, that makes it a credible threat by default.
Click to expand...

Why?

varwoche said:
It's crystal clear that when Trump threatened Raffensperger with repercussions lest he "find 11,780 votes" that Trump had an objective.
Click to expand...

To bluster and intimidate, like the schoolyard bully he has been for decades, yes. And?

An empty veiled threat with zero follow through (unless you count the GA Gov basically laughing at him and publicly humiliating him by releasing the audio to be 'follow through') is not an attempt to seize power. Its just impotent barking.
 
Thermal said:
Why?



To bluster and intimidate, like the schoolyard bully he has been for decades, yes. And?

An empty veiled threat with zero follow through (unless you count the GA Gov basically laughing at him and publicly humiliating him by releasing the audio to be 'follow through') is not an attempt to seize power. Its just impotent barking.
Click to expand...

Georgia Governor didn't release the Call, it was leaked by someone in the Attorney General's office.
 
Thermal said:
Why?



To bluster and intimidate, like the schoolyard bully he has been for decades, yes. And?

An empty veiled threat with zero follow through (unless you count the GA Gov basically laughing at him and publicly humiliating him by releasing the audio to be 'follow through') is not an attempt to seize power. Its just impotent barking.
Click to expand...

It's a credible attempt at a Coup that they failed is of no Consequence.
 
Thermal said:
That's the same repeated bald assertion. That it failed is irrelevant. I'm asking what you guys see that made it a credible attempt to actually seize power.
Click to expand...

it was a credible attempt - Raffensberger could have gone along.

Just like a bank robbery being stopped by a guard is still a bank robbery, election fraud is election fraud whether you manage to convince the election officials to "find" votes for you or not.
That's in the text of the Law.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Why?
Click to expand...
The power of the office, obviously.

To bluster and intimidate, like the schoolyard bully he has been for decades, yes. And?
Click to expand...
When criminal threats originate from an unhinged POTUS, that's serious business. Just ask Mrs Raffensperger.

Behind Relentless Death Threats Against Raffenspergers, Georgia Election Officials


An empty veiled threat with zero follow through (unless you count the GA Gov basically laughing at him and publicly humiliating him by releasing the audio to be 'follow through') is not an attempt to seize power. Its just impotent barking.
Click to expand...
Not empty. It's serious business when the POTUS draws a target on your back. See above.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
it was a credible attempt - Raffensberger could have gone along.

Just like a bank robbery being stopped by a guard is still a bank robbery, election fraud is election fraud whether you manage to convince the election officials to "find" votes for you or not.
That's in the text of the Law.
Click to expand...

Again, what "could have" happened is fantasyland. You might just as well say the police "could have" spontaneously declared itself the Trump Army, so therefore coup. Its meaningless.

A bank robbery being stopped means the active attempt was rolling. My argument here is that no attempt was in motion. It was idle peripheral babbling, with no cooperation from actual power wielders to even theoretically give it credibility.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
it was a credible attempt - Raffensberger could have gone along.
Just like a bank robbery being stopped by a guard is still a bank robbery, election fraud is election fraud whether you manage to convince the election officials to "find" votes for you or not.
That's in the text of the Law.
Click to expand...
Which could easily have emboldened the Republicans of other states to do the same.

Had Trump laid "proper" groundwork amongst state governments during his first campaign and years in office, doing actual favors rather than simply praising his vocal supporters, he would have had more influence to wield even after he lost the election. That definitely could have changed the result of his coup. Of course, had he done anything like a rational politician, sad to say, he wouldn't have needed to attempt a coup...which he absolutely did.
 
Thermal said:
Again, what "could have" happened is fantasyland. You might just as well say the police "could have" spontaneously declared itself the Trump Army, so therefore coup. Its meaningless.

A bank robbery being stopped means the active attempt was rolling. My argument here is that no attempt was in motion. It was idle peripheral babbling, with no cooperation from actual power wielders to even theoretically give it credibility.
Click to expand...

it was an active attempt - prosecutors agree.
You are not thinking clearly if you disagree.
 
Thermal said:
Again, what "could have" happened is fantasyland. You might just as well say the police "could have" spontaneously declared itself the Trump Army, so therefore coup. Its meaningless.

A bank robbery being stopped means the active attempt was rolling. My argument here is that no attempt was in motion. It was idle peripheral babbling, with no cooperation from actual power wielders to even theoretically give it credibility.
Click to expand...
You are just being willfully blind at this point.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Re: “When the person leading the coup is POTUS, that makes it a credible threat by default.”



Do you see how being the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces makes the threat more credible than just some random schmuck?
Click to expand...

No. IIRC, the military is sworn to uphold the Constitution and obligated to refute orders that undermine it.

See, the military or similar force is key. If factions of the military backed Trump et als bleating, that would be very different. I have no reason to think the military would act on domestic citizens on the order of an outgoing lame duck. In fact, I'd be confident that Congress would have one of those emergency incompetence vote thingys and stop it cold.

To attempt a credible coup, you need leverage. Normally, it is the guys with significant firepower, although it can happen via other leverage. I don't see Trump et al having any means to accomplish any of this.
 
Thermal can move the goalposts to "credible coup" and "military coup" and special plead their way into "emergency vote thingies" but it's just not convincing.

"Sources have told the Guardian that just hours before the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol this year, Donald Trump made several calls from the White House to top lieutenants at the Willard Hotel in Washington to discuss ways to stop or delay the certification of Joe Biden’s election win from taking place on 6 January," The Guardian reported Tuesday.

...


"Trump’s remarks reveal a direct line from the White House and the command center at the Willard," the newspaper reported. "The conversations also show Trump’s thoughts appear to be in line with the motivations of the pro-Trump mob that carried out the Capitol attack. He phoned his lieutenants at the Willard sometime between the late evening on 5 January and the early hours of 6 January after becoming furious at Pence for refusing to do him a final favor."
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom