• 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:
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...

If a Jester Shoots the King, and because he is the jester Wounds him, but Fails to kill the King is he still Guilty of Trying to assassinate the King or Because he is the Court Fool does he get a free pass?
That is your whole and Complete argument, the Motive of Trump was to Seeze power from the Elected Congress and the Voters of the United States, the fact he failed because his Supporters have a serious Lack of 🧠 cells , does not change the Motive or intent of the Crime, it only proves Trump was desperate, and was using the only means at his disposal.
As was the Hypothetical Jester and his small bow and arrow with which he shot the King!
There is no Logical Legal or moral argument in your responses, a capital crime is a crime whether it succeeds of Fails.
 
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes but didn't you know according to Jerome Corsi and Infowars Trump Made a Secret deal with the Military in 2008?
 
Jesus Christ we're still defending them via "Well they were too stupid and disorganized to actually pull of their plan" defense.

Pathetic.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Jesus Christ we're still defending them via "Well they were too stupid and disorganized to actually pull of their plan" defense.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

It's the most 🧠 Cell Lacking defense I have ever seen on this forum worse than Arguments,
By the 9/11NO Planers.
 
varwoche said:
The power of the office, obviously.
Click to expand...

Meaningless. There are no coup powere inherent in the Office, and in fact provisions against them. But go on.

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


Not empty. It's serious business when the POTUS draws a target on your back. See above.
Click to expand...

Your link is dead. {eta: it livened up, bad connection on my end} IIRC, threats were made after the release of the audio. For the threats to be under Trump's influence, they would have needed to be before. empty threats by random whackos is, i believe, common in DC when anyone does anything. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
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 most certainly is an attempt to seize power. Just because it didn't work doesn't negate this fact.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
If a Jester Shoots the King, and because he is the jester Wounds him, but Fails to kill the King is he still Guilty of Trying to assassinate the King or Because he is the Court Fool does he get a free pass?
That is your whole and Complete argument, the Motive of Trump was to Seeze power from the Elected Congress and the Voters of the United States, the fact he failed because his Supporters have a serious Lack of 🧠 cells , does not change the Motive or intent of the Crime, it only proves Trump was desperate, and was using the only means at his disposal.
As was the Hypothetical Jester and his small bow and arrow with which he shot the King!
There is no Logical Legal or moral argument in your responses, a capital crime is a crime whether it succeeds of Fails.
Click to expand...

Over and over I say that the failure is irrelevant, yet off you go arguing that that is my argument. I don't believe you anymore. See ya on the next one.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

You seem not to understand The Guardian quote you put up. Here, let me help:

Trump discussed ways to stop the certification with the military. That would be "legal" means. There is no reporting whatsoever that Trump asked/begged for/ordered any illegal activity. He wanted to know if there was a way he could stop it. The answer was "no". Actually, that pretty much lays to rest how much the military would back him, to respond to the stupid suggestion that him being the Commander in Chief gave a coup attempt credibility.

The ball is still in your court. Snottiness doesn't answer the question you keep ducking.
 
The military? What the hell are you talking about? Roger Stone and the gang were at the Willard Hotel, not the military.
 
Thermal said:
Meaningless. There are no coup powere inherent in the Office, and in fact provisions against them. But go on.
Click to expand...

There is no 'give me all your cash' power inherent in carrying a firearm. In fact, there are laws against it. If I'm holding a gun and I demand all your money I'm therefore not making a credible threat.

No, something being illegal to do with your power doesn't in any way mean you're not doing something or threatening to do something illegal with your power. This is even more the case with someone who has been open about being willing to do illegal acts!

'He couldn't do that, it'd be illegal' when he's already doing illegal things is...well it certainly is a novel defense from a coup allegation.
 
carlitos said:
The military? What the hell are you talking about? Roger Stone and the gang were at the Willard Hotel, not the military.
Click to expand...

My bad. Responding to 6 or 8 people mindlessly repeating virtually the same thing causing confusion on my end.

Oddly, the same response applies. Show, specifically, where the Trumpster moved to do anything illegal. Discussing **** is spitballing. I want the credible quote that a coup attempt was on the hoof. Not some writer's impression. The actual words, like...you know...a skeptic would require.

I get that this is /pol and conscious thought is suspended, but give it a whirl.
 
thaiboxerken said:
And you're only calling it non-credible because it didn't work. Same stupid argument.
Click to expand...

He's saying it couldn't have worked. But it could have. His reasoning for why it couldn't have worked is equally invalid as claiming it was non-credible because it didn't work. The thinking is quite obviously like the truther who thinks such a simple plan couldn't have brought down the World Trade Center buildings. Indeed if Trump's coup had worked, it would be argued that the Capitol insurrection didn't play into it because that is too 'easy' too.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
He's saying it couldn't have worked. But it could have. His reasoning for why it couldn't have worked is equally invalid as claiming it was non-credible because it didn't work. The thinking is quite obviously like the truther who thinks such a simple plan couldn't have brought down the World Trade Center buildings. Indeed if Trump's coup had worked, it would be argued that the Capitol insurrection didn't play into it because that is too 'easy' too.
Click to expand...

That's right, he's saying it couldn't have work only because it didn't work. He's ignoring the reality that it didn't work only because a handful of people did not go along with it. He's also ignoring the fact that the GOP is setting up the next election so that they can make it easier for their people to go along with such actions if presented.
 
tyr_13 said:
There is no 'give me all your cash' power inherent in carrying a firearm. In fact, there are laws against it. If I'm holding a gun and I demand all your money I'm therefore not making a credible threat.
Click to expand...

You are. You are wielding the power, with the means and evident intent to deploy it.

So, the obvious: what did Trump hold that would credibly menace the US Government? Do you think the military would do his unconstitutional bidding? Or do you mean the J6ers with their peashooter arsenal that couldn't hijack a pizza parlor, that they conveniently left in their trucks at game time anyway?

No, something being illegal to do with your power doesn't in any way mean you're not doing something or threatening to do something illegal with your power. This is even more the case with someone who has been open about being willing to do illegal acts!
Click to expand...

Same. What power did he wield? He delivered a bullying veiled threat to Rassberger, with no power behind it, as we saw. He might be perfectly willing to do anything, but lacks the force to make it real. I'm not inclined to indulge his fantasies.

'He couldn't do that, it'd be illegal' when he's already doing illegal things is...well it certainly is a novel defense from a coup allegation.
Click to expand...

Not quite. "He had no ability to do the illegal things" is more on point.
 
Thermal said:
You are. You are wielding the power, with the means and evident intent to deploy it.

So, the obvious: what did Trump hold that would credibly menace the US Government? Do you think the military would do his unconstitutional bidding? Or do you mean the J6ers with their peashooter arsenal that couldn't hijack a pizza parlor, that they conveniently left in their trucks at game time anyway?



Same. What power did he wield? He delivered a bullying veiled threat to Rassberger, with no power behind it, as we saw. He might be perfectly willing to do anything, but lacks the force to make it real. I'm not inclined to indulge his fantasies.



Not quite. "He had no ability to do the illegal things" is more on point.
Click to expand...

You're saying because he didn't pull the trigger, that the threat wasn't credible. That's exactly what you are saying. You're saying he couldn't pull the trigger because he didn't. That's illogical.

He tried to get DoJ intervention, and place people there to do the things he was threatening. The only thing that stopped him was the threat of mass resignations, which is like someone grabbing the gun or even better a misfire, not an inability to pull the trigger. He could have pardoned them after their illegal actions, so the people he was trying to put in DoJ and the DoD could do what others were unwilling to do. He literally tried to get people in place to carry out his threats, figuratively loading the gun. This was his power. He was using his power.

He was doing illegal things. He had the power to direct a mob at the Capitol, and did so, to advance his coup plan.
 
thaiboxerken said:
And you're only calling it non-credible because it didn't work. Same stupid argument.
Click to expand...

No. A thousand times no. You can keep repeating it, and it just makes you look a little comprehension challenged.

You are claiming "Hurr durr, Thermal says that since the toaster didn't work, there was no toaster".

What I am actually doing is pointing to the bare countertop and saying "ya silly ******* doofuses, there is no toaster. There never was. You are looking over at a blender and you think it is a toaster".

Then I spread my hands around and say "do you see any evidence of a toaster anywhere in here?" Your reply: "Hurr durr, Thermal says that since the toaster didn't work, there was no toaster".

This is too stupid. I can't do you 4channers. Thermal out.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
That's right, he's saying it couldn't have work only because it didn't work. He's ignoring the reality that it didn't work only because a handful of people did not go along with it. He's also ignoring the fact that the GOP is setting up the next election so that they can make it easier for their people to go along with such actions if presented.
Click to expand...

This is so important to note. 'It couldn't have worked, people wouldn't have went along' while most Republicans say they wanted to go along and Republican officials who would have are actively changing things so they could have that power the next time is just bonkers. 'But the military takes an oath' is just...words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom