Trump's Coup d'état.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

JoeMorgue above.

Oh my God. You're really going to be this pedantic and picky about a turn of phrase as if "win" has one singular, absolute definition in this discussion?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think the GOP probably see no downsides to this. In a way, they would be fine with Trump just shuffling off and making it easier on them not having to rationalize away his nonsense day after day, but then they watch him trying to push his bulldozer out of a ditch, a ridiculous thing to try and think, hey, we may as well just see if he can do it, and put their shoulders to the wheel anyway. The worst that can happen is that it stays in the ditch but there are apparently ZERO negative consequences to violating all accepted norms in an election for them so why not keep violating them. If nothing else it only helps to highlight the stress points that they will be able to exploit later when a more competent demagogue emerges. Maybe someone with an eyepatch.

Yep. There will always be a Trump.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Yep. There will always be a Trump.

I dunno. I like to think of him as a unique flower.

That can be torn up and ground underfoot.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by eerok

I dunno. I like to think of him as a unique flower.

That can be torn up and ground underfoot.

Success breeds imitation. They'll be another Trump... and he'll be talkin Jews.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

We're referring to the soft (so far) coup Trump is attempting, correct? Where did JM claim Trump was winning that?

My post was in reply to Mader Levap.

Quote:

Justifying downplay of threat because "he is just too incompetent" is like saying - to use example that someone already told above - attempted murder is no big deal, since no one actually died.

You would turn blind eye to photo of teapot around Mercury anyway.

Oooh, another genius in "it is just incompetently attempted murder, so no big deal" camp.

Projection is strong in this one.

Joe's post was inserted into the exchange.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Oh my God. You're really going to be this pedantic and picky about a turn of phrase as if "win" has one singular, absolute definition in this discussion?

How about you go back to the post I replied to and tell me how your post fits in the exchange because things have gotten very muddled here and I don't feel like straightening it out.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I just read this Twitter thread and each entry I've read has been clever and priceless.
Trump's Legal Team nicknames

Sorry if you can't access Twitter.

'The Gang that couldn't Sue Straight'.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is he winning yet?

You are really in denial, aren't you. Or you can't see past your nose.

Let me say, or rather ask, it in simple words.

This is coup attempt (level of competency does not matter). Yes or no?

Even unsuccessful coup will make next time way, way easier. Yes or no?

[Tero]

Originally Posted by eerok

I dunno. I like to think of him as a unique flower.

That can be torn up and ground underfoot.

I think the GOP is going to have a hard time finding Trump II. It has to be non-politician, famous and similar "dumb talk" to his fans. Trump had the Apprentice background to launch himself from. Tucker Carlson? No. I have no idea.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It was intended as a counter to The Great Z's framing that Republicans are aiming to reduce democracy so they can get their way. All of the linked articles (and the review) are from left-leaning sources and authors, all of them bemoaning the fact that the problem with the US (which led to Trump) is that we have too much democracy, and that we'd really be better off if we took away some of that democracy so that people who know better can make sure we don't get into trouble.

Some of them do have good points with respect to risks in a democratic system. But my point was that it's not the Republicans pushing the "too much democracy" narrative.

Omg. This post impresses me as flat out surreal.

Framing? Articles? What sort of bubble do you live in? One in which a POTUS is blatantly attempting to overthrow democracy, but that doesn't much matter. What matters is rank BS about framing and articles and whatever other red herrings you might conceive.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It was intended as a counter to The Great Z's framing that Republicans are aiming to reduce democracy so they can get their way. All of the linked articles (and the review) are from left-leaning sources and authors, all of them bemoaning the fact that the problem with the US (which led to Trump) is that we have too much democracy, and that we'd really be better off if we took away some of that democracy so that people who know better can make sure we don't get into trouble.

Some of them do have good points with respect to risks in a democratic system. But my point was that it's not the Republicans pushing the "too much democracy" narrative.

no, you just completely missed the point.

The articles you linked call for ways to make Democracy more effective, not to make a Democracy in which only Democrats win. This is not undemoratic.

What we see now (and have before) from Trump and Republicans is that they rig the system or simply refuse to accept elections if they don't go their way. This is very much undemoratic.

One group seeks to make the rules better for everyone.
The other group tries to change the rules so that only they can win.

Too bad you seem to think that those are the same things.

[JoeMorgue]

The "Bothsidist" can't tell the difference between a fair system where one side happens to win (because they are just better and not reality denying sociopaths) and an unfair system that is unfair by definition because one side wins.

I thought that everyone understood that "fair and balanced" had a "As long as both sides are living in the same reality" unspoken assumption to it. Perhaps I was wrong.

If 2+2 =4 every time you add it up that's because 2+2=4 is a fact, not because there's some bias against 2+2=a potato that you have to pitch a hissy fit over.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I don't care if he says he is Lord and Master of All Creation. He asked the courts to see things his way. He asked his supporters to ask officials to change the vote.

Asking is not a coup. Its just weak posturing and whining.

I was only asking someone to kill someone else for money, there is nothing wrong with asking after all, why is this harmless talk suddenly a crime?

[carlosy]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I was only asking someone to kill someone else for money, there is nothing wrong with asking after all, why is this harmless talk suddenly a crime?

Yeah, crazy ****. I thought we had freedom of speech. Asking can't be a crime, right?

Leftist democrat mob wants to silence everyone. Now they are going to cancel the right to ask.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Tero

I think the GOP is going to have a hard time finding Trump II. It has to be non-politician, famous and similar "dumb talk" to his fans. Trump had the Apprentice background to launch himself from. Tucker Carlson? No. I have no idea.

I'm afraid the GOP will have a wide selection of jackasses to choose from.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I was only asking someone to kill someone else for money, there is nothing wrong with asking after all, why is this harmless talk suddenly a crime?

"Hey Icerat! Can I have the forum?"

There. A for realz legit bona fide coup attempt. Isn't it exciting?

There's plenty of real **** going on guys. This is a sad bluster, not "wresting power"

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

About five years ago, Graham said that nominating Trump would destroy the Republican Party. He may yet be proved right about that.

He was right, but it turns out he doesn't care that much after he earned a spot in the new Trumpublcian Party.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Thermal

"Hey Icerat! Can I have the forum?"

There. A for realz legit bona fide coup attempt. Isn't it exciting?

There's plenty of real **** going on guys. This is a sad bluster, not "wresting power"

He is attempting to wrest power. Brazenly so. I realize we're all inured, but sometimes it's important to take a step back and get some perspective. The President of the United States is attempting to overturn a free and fair election. And the Republican party is complicit.

That's what I call real **** and then some.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by varwoche

He is attempting to wrest power. Brazenly so. I realize we're all inured, but sometimes it's important to take a step back and get some perspective. The President of the United States is attempting to overturn a free and fair election.

That's what I call real **** and then some.

I of course agree that it is ****** up five ways from Sunday. What I disagree with is that is is anything remotely like a coup.

Every definition of a coup has something like "wresting control" or "seizing power" , bloody or not. In short, you have to have some teeth in there somewhere, be it guns or popular support or something, anything, to make it happen. That's why I think it falls far short of anything coup-ish. Its yapping, being met with a flat "nope" in four-part harmony with feeling.

Getting wound up about impotent bleating is something that seems beneath skeptics. I kind of like being on the side that doesn't get carried away in theatrical fantasy. Shouldn't we be focusing on the things that might be, you know, real?

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Thermal

"Hey Icerat! Can I have the forum?"

There. A for realz legit bona fide coup attempt. Isn't it exciting?

There's plenty of real **** going on guys. This is a sad bluster, not "wresting power"

Not quite comparable there, Icerat willingly giving you the forum because you asked wouldn't violate norms, ethics or principles of forum ownership.

If you began insisting daily that you were the rightful owner of the forum and that Icerat had stolen it from you and started having your lawyers calling the Forum's webhost demanding they turn it over to you, we'd be getting a little warmer.

The issue with a coup isn't just "Trying to get in power" but trying to do so in a way that subverts the established lawful and ethical grounding of power.

But I think there's a further misunderstanding here in where the danger lies.

I feel like you and likely SG seem to be thinking "There is no way that between the courts, appeals to stop certification of results and any faithless electors or other comparable legal shenanigans that 37 electoral college votes are changed from the current predictions to cast for Trump instead of Biden"

And on that point, I think most people in this thread are in agreement.The fact that the legal appeal won't work isn't the point.

The legal appeal and the conspiracy theories simply create the background for Trump, and some number of his supporters, citizens, elected GOP officials and appointed or hired people in government to maintain that the election is illegitimate.

What can they do with that after Jan 20th? Not entirely clear, and it depends how much buy-in they can wrangle.

We're in the middle of a pandemic and likely a major economic downturn that will absolutely require federal action. How does that play out if chunks of the country don't recognize the executive branch as legitimate? We're a nation of laws to a certain extent through the respecting of norms. If states or municipalities don't recognize the authority of the executive branch, what happens? Biden sends troops to enforce? That's not a great look, and the kind of thing that escalates bubbling tensions.

Maybe by late January all but a few kooks say "Alright alright, Biden is president, we don't like it, but whatcha gonna do?" That would be nice, but it would require Trump's spell being broken in a way I find it hard to count on with 100% confidence.

We know 100% that Trump will never concede that he lost a legitimate election.

We know 100% that Trump's popularity is sky high among the right wing, including a number of high level elected positions.

We know that at least over the last four years, the rest of the GOP has been so scared of alienating Trump's rabid followers that they went along with anything and everything, conceding that his base was the driving force in the right wing for elections at all levels.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I of course agree that it is ****** up five ways from Sunday. What I disagree with is that is is anything remotely like a coup.

Every definition of a coup has something like "wresting control" or "seizing power" , bloody or not. In short, you have to have some teeth in there somewhere, be it guns or popular support or something, anything, to make it happen. That's why I think it falls far short of anything coup-ish. Its yapping, being met with a flat "nope" in four-part harmony with feeling.

Getting wound up about impotent bleating is something that seems beneath skeptics. I kind of like being on the side that doesn't get carried away in theatrical fantasy. Shouldn't we be focusing on the things that might be, you know, real?

Incompetence is not much of a defense when it is someone has no clue who to build a bomb, why should when it comes to engineering a coup?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Not quite comparable there, Icerat willingly giving you the forum because you asked wouldn't violate norms, ethics or principles of forum ownership.

If you began insisting daily that you were the rightful owner of the forum and that Icerat had stolen it from you and started having your lawyers calling the Forum's webhost demanding they turn it over to you, we'd be getting a little warmer.

The issue with a coup isn't just "Trying to get in power" but trying to do so in a way that subverts the established lawful and ethical grounding of power.

But I think there's a further misunderstanding here in where the danger lies.

I feel like you and likely SG seem to be thinking "There is no way that between the courts, appeals to stop certification of results and any faithless electors or other comparable legal shenanigans that 37 electoral college votes are changed from the current predictions to cast for Trump instead of Biden"

And on that point, I think most people in this thread are in agreement.The fact that the legal appeal won't work isn't the point.

The legal appeal and the conspiracy theories simply create the background for Trump, and some number of his supporters, citizens, elected GOP officials and appointed or hired people in government to maintain that the election is illegitimate.

What can they do with that after Jan 20th? Not entirely clear, and it depends how much buy-in they can wrangle.

We're in the middle of a pandemic and likely a major economic downturn that will absolutely require federal action. How does that play out if chunks of the country don't recognize the executive branch as legitimate? We're a nation of laws to a certain extent through the respecting of norms. If states or municipalities don't recognize the authority of the executive branch, what happens? Biden sends troops to enforce? That's not a great look, and the kind of thing that escalates bubbling tensions.

Maybe by late January all but a few kooks say "Alright alright, Biden is president, we don't like it, but whatcha gonna do?" That would be nice, but it would require Trump's spell being broken in a way I find it hard to count on with 100% confidence.

We know 100% that Trump will never concede that he lost a legitimate election.

We know 100% that Trump's popularity is sky high among the right wing, including a number of high level elected positions.

We know that at least over the last four years, the rest of the GOP has been so scared of alienating Trump's rabid followers that they went along with anything and everything, conceding that his base was the driving force in the right wing for elections at all levels.

Sort of. I agree with your take on how it will play out, and why (except that I think his supporters will drop him like a bad habit by Jan).

Everything about Trump is smoke and mirrors. And he has carried his ability to control your thoughts right into the Oval Office. Skeptics should not get caught up in the maelstrom of posturing. It's not real. There is no coup/attempt. There is only a sad clown asking for others to see things his way. It works for him either way: we can bow down to his schoolyard bully blustering and he's in for another 4 (not going to happen). Or he can use this to convince himself and others that the game was rigged. Either way, he wins. I suggest to take the wins away and point and laugh. The outcome is the same, but by being realistic about what is happening, you take his win away. That's how you weaken his position.

I really don't get why this should be so controversial a point.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Incompetence is not much of a defense when it is someone has no clue who to build a bomb, why should when it comes to engineering a coup?

A bomb has explosive elements that can damage. Contracting a hit man has money that will enact those services. They both have power. This asking pretty please does not. That's why it's not a coup, anymore than asking for someone to give you a rocket means you are legitimately engineering a space program

[thaiboxerken]

POTUS has power. POTUS asking people to do illegal activity is a crime just like asking someone to kill another person for you, whether you pay them or just ask them "pretty please."

The only reason Trump isn't in jail is because we don't have anyone willing to enforce the laws upon him that has the power to do so.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Skeptics should not get caught up in the maelstrom of posturing. It's not real. There is no coup/attempt. There is only a sad clown asking for others to see things his way. It works for him either way: we can bow down to his schoolyard bully blustering and he's in for another 4 (not going to happen). Or he can use this to convince himself and others that the game was rigged.

The concern is that, if enough Republican politicians in positions of power take option 1, then it's possible, though unlikely, that actions of dubious legality will be undertaken to overturn the result of the popular vote by dismissing the legally appointed electors and replacing them with electors instructed to vote for Trump. Resolution of the resulting chaos would then fall either to the Senate, which is expected to vote along party lines for Trump, or to the Supreme Court, which is expected to vote along ideological lines for Trump. It doesn't actually need anyone else to bow down and accept it; if enough states overturn their popular votes, the Senate accepts the result, and the Supreme Court upholds it, then a coup has taken place.

Dave

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Thermal

A bomb has explosive elements that can damage. Contracting a hit man has money that will enact those services. They both have power. This asking pretty please does not. That's why it's not a coup, anymore than asking for someone to give you a rocket means you are legitimately engineering a space program

Yes it does have power. Obviously and unambiguously.

Two synagogues and a Wal-Mart were attacked leaving dozens dead because the President, with the power his words carry, told people Jews supported a criminal caravan of brown people invading from Mexico.

And that is before getting into things like the denial of National Security briefings, Covid-19 information, and the like being denied the next President of the United States and the lives that will be lost because of it.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I of course agree that it is ****** up five ways from Sunday. What I disagree with is that is is anything remotely like a coup.

Every definition of a coup has something like "wresting control" or "seizing power" , bloody or not. In short, you have to have some teeth in there somewhere, be it guns or popular support or something, anything, to make it happen. That's why I think it falls far short of anything coup-ish. Its yapping, being met with a flat "nope" in four-part harmony with feeling.

All you argue is that unsuccessful murder attempt is no big deal. Others already addressed your BS claim that current ongoing coup (however inept and incompetent), do not have "teeth in there somewhere".

Originally Posted by Thermal

Getting wound up about impotent bleating is something that seems beneath skeptics. I kind of like being on the side that doesn't get carried away in theatrical fantasy. Shouldn't we be focusing on the things that might be, you know, real?

Don't be so dramatic, they will be just sent to Madagascar!

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

A bomb has explosive elements that can damage. Contracting a hit man has money that will enact those services. They both have power. This asking pretty please does not. That's why it's not a coup, anymore than asking for someone to give you a rocket means you are legitimately engineering a space program

So if you erroneously think something inert is explosive you are not guilty of attempting to bomb anything. Just like if you don't have the money you get off for trying to hire an undercover officer as a hit man. And it is also unlikely that the officer would have actually performed the hit so that is doubly not a crime.

You are sounding like my coworker who asserted that Trump didn't ever mean a real physical wall on the Mexican border, that would be a huge boondoggle it was just a metaphor. Still voted for Trump again despite his shutting down the government for his metaphor.

And you are basing this entirely on the idea that the president of the united states has no power.

Now he does seem to be unwilling to go all in on his coup, but that doesn't mean it is a metaphor or anything, just that he is a lazy coward.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Tero

I think the GOP is going to have a hard time finding Trump II. It has to be non-politician, famous and similar "dumb talk" to his fans. Trump had the Apprentice background to launch himself from. Tucker Carlson? No. I have no idea.

Finding? They just need to make one. Time for a call over to Central Casting for the next Reagan. Maybe Dennis Quaid or something.

ETA: Wow, he's actually going to PORTRAY Reagan in an upcoming film.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Thermal

A bomb has explosive elements that can damage. Contracting a hit man has money that will enact those services. They both have power. This asking pretty please does not. That's why it's not a coup, anymore than asking for someone to give you a rocket means you are legitimately engineering a space program

so your stances is that Trump can absolutely try to shoot someone on 5th Avenue if he is just a bad enough shot.

Got it.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by gnome

Finding? They just need to make one. Time for a call over to Central Casting for the next Reagan. Maybe Dennis Quaid or something.

Randy Quaid seems more the speed of the current republican party.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The concern is that, if enough Republican politicians in positions of power take option 1, then it's possible, though unlikely, that actions of dubious legality will be undertaken to overturn the result of the popular vote by dismissing the legally appointed electors and replacing them with electors instructed to vote for Trump. Resolution of the resulting chaos would then fall either to the Senate, which is expected to vote along party lines for Trump, or to the Supreme Court, which is expected to vote along ideological lines for Trump. It doesn't actually need anyone else to bow down and accept it; if enough states overturn their popular votes, the Senate accepts the result, and the Supreme Court upholds it, then a coup has taken place.

Dave

Yes, I know. What I am arguing is that the chances of any States overturning their election results seems to be pretty much zero. Even his lawsuits are bei g tossed out unceremoniously. That is the power he would need to attempt a credible coup. He doesn't have it, so why talk like he does? Why not just call it the pitiful posturing that it is, instead of swooning over his swinging mushroom?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

so your stances is that Trump can absolutely try to shoot someone on 5th Avenue if he is just a bad enough shot.

Got it.

More accurate analogy: he stands on fifth Avenue pointing finger guns and saying "Pew Pew". Still swooning, are you?

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Thermal

More accurate analogy: he stands on fifth Avenue pointing finger guns and saying "Pew Pew". Still swooning, are you?

I like how you are still insisting that POTUS has no power and is meaningless figurehead that cannot do anything whatsoever.

I laugh at that nonsense.

Originally Posted by Thermal

More accurate analogy: he stands on fifth Avenue pointing finger guns and saying "Pew Pew". Still swooning, are you?

Even more accurate analogy: Trump is standing on fifth Avenue and shoots with real bullets missing every time while you are pretending he is pointing finger guns.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Yes it does have power. Obviously and unambiguously.

Two synagogues and a Wal-Mart were attacked leaving dozens dead because the President, with the power his words carry, told people Jews supported a criminal caravan of brown people invading from Mexico.

And that is before getting into things like the denial of National Security briefings, Covid-19 information, and the like being denied the next President of the United States and the lives that will be lost because of it.

Inspiring a couple yahoos with guns (assuming they were the Manchurian Candidates you suppose) is not the force needed to subvert the entire ******* Democratic process. In proof of which, I offer external reality: the courts and election boards are telling him to go play with his candy corn. Where's all this awesome power I keep hearing about?

He's a lame duck limp dick. Sure he can weild the power of the office and his tweets. But that won't get him a coup. Its imaginary in the face of the facts. The facts are that no one is backing him up. He is alone and whimpering and making a fool of himself in front of the world. I really don't get why the planet isn't enjoying watching these dying throes.

My avatar bet stands. Takers? Or do your own theatrics not convince you enough for even a lowly avatar bet?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

I like how you are still insisting that POTUS has no power and is meaningless figurehead that cannot do anything whatsoever.

I laugh at that nonsense.



Even more accurate analogy: Trump is standing on fifth Avenue and shoots with real bullets missing every time while you are pretending he is pointing finger guns.

He has no power to do WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HE HAS. THE COUP, REMEMBER?

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Thermal

He has no power to do WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HE HAS. THE COUP, REMEMBER?

He does have power. He is wielding it incompetently and ineptly. That does not change fact it is coup attempt.

Originally Posted by Thermal

I really don't get why the planet isn't enjoying watching these dying throes.

Because this farce weakens USA's democracy (or rather what passes for one in USA), making next coup attempt significantly easier. Some of us are not idiots thinking it is fun popcorn-eating ****show.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I of course agree that it is ****** up five ways from Sunday. What I disagree with is that is is anything remotely like a coup.

Every definition of a coup has something like "wresting control" or "seizing power" , bloody or not. In short, you have to have some teeth in there somewhere, be it guns or popular support or something, anything, to make it happen. That's why I think it falls far short of anything coup-ish. Its yapping, being met with a flat "nope" in four-part harmony with feeling.

Getting wound up about impotent bleating is something that seems beneath skeptics. I kind of like being on the side that doesn't get carried away in theatrical fantasy. Shouldn't we be focusing on the things that might be, you know, real?

It’s not “impotent bleating”. It’s doing real and lasting damage to our country.

That you keep insisting otherwise severely undercuts whatever point you think you’re making.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Randy Quaid seems more the speed of the current republican party.

I mention it because Dennis seems to actually be a Trump supporter. But I did laugh.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

More accurate analogy: he stands on fifth Avenue pointing finger guns and saying "Pew Pew". Still swooning, are you?

Then it is a question of does he believe that will work. If the thing in question is a non firing replica or just unloaded does that change anything?