Trump's Next Coup Has Already Begun

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 12/17/2021 at 11:17 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Very interesting.  It appears the only reason Napoleon’s coup was successful is that he was the head of the army.  With the help of Sieyes (who he later betrayed) the coup was successful and set up Napoleon’s own coup some time later.

The difference being, Trump did not have ANY backing from ANY significant person in power, therefore, it really wasn’t a coup attempt.

Fack Check: only one person died in what was incorrectly termed the coup attempt and she was unarmed and shot by a Capitol Police Officer.  The other people died of natural causes.

Who the **** could thumbsdown this?

Edited December 20, 2021 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,440]

End of the Day...No one cares about some lame, half-assed, maybe, sorta kinda possible coup attempt that was unarmed and had literally less than zero chance of being pulled off. I truly feel sorry from the depths of my heart for those of you so incredibly trump obsessed that you have to do continual mental masturbation on this. 

The entire armed forces, Congress, SCOTUS, the American People, and every court in the land were there to stop this AND DID.  

No amount of mental masturbation can change these facts.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/17/2021 at 6:24 PM, Grumps said:

I couldn't find the part where the people attempting the coup were unarmed and the people who were defeated were armed.

Sorry, you'll need to explain the distinction you are trying to make.

As the piece stated, Napolean staged a coup and no one was killed.  Your claim is that wasn't really a coup because of the lack of armed conflict (my paraphrase of your claim).

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/17/2021 at 12:17 PM, I_M4_AU said:

1) ery interesting.  It appears the only reason Napoleon’s coup was successful is that he was the head of the army.  With the help of Sieyes (who he later betrayed) the coup was successful and set up Napoleon’s own coup some time later.

2) The difference being, Trump did not have ANY backing from ANY significant person in power, therefore, it really wasn’t a coup attempt.

3) Fack Check: only one person died in what was incorrectly termed the coup attempt and she was unarmed and shot by a Capitol Police Officer.  The other people died of natural causes.

1) Trump was commander in chief of the U.S. military.

2) No, that is what makes it a failed coup attempt.  It was still an attempt, by definition.

3) More than one person died in the failed coup attempt, not that the exact number - or the specific cause of their death - matters one iota.

You are exhibiting cultist logic.  Invent some reasons - no matter how illogical or flimsy - to declare what Trump did was not a coup attempt and then stick to it regardless.

[I_M4_AU 7,986]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are exhibiting cultist logic.  Invent some reasons - no matter how illogical or flimsy - to declare what Trump did was not a coup attempt and then stick to it regardless.

This part is hilarious.  Where is @DKW 86’s irony meter?

[bigbird 60,580]

So coup is the new collusion, Russia, QPQ, et.al? This must be super serious.

[Grumps 3,704]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, you'll need to explain the distinction you are trying to make.

As the piece stated, Napolean staged a coup and no one was killed.  Your claim is that wasn't really a coup because of the lack of armed conflict (my paraphrase of your claim).

If you will read the post you were quoting when you brought up Napolean then I think you will be able to figure it out.

[DKW 86 7,440]

He ******* jumped the shark at Napoleon. 😎

[wdefromtx 3,159]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

He ******* jumped the shark at Napoleon. 😎

Wait, wrong Napoleon. 

[bigbird 60,580]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

If you will read the post you were quoting when you brought up Napolean then I think you will be able to figure it out.

Are we taking bets

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

So coup is the new collusion, Russia, QPQ, et.al? This must be super serious.

 

8 hours ago, bigbird said:

Are we taking bets

Your exhaustion with the divide between Rs and Ds and your efforts to narrow it are noted. 

[I_M4_AU 7,986]

15 hours ago, bigbird said:

So coup is the new collusion, Russia, QPQ, et.al? This must be super serious.

Standby for a new definition of a *coup*.  It’s the leftist way.

[bigbird 60,580]

4 hours ago, McLoofus said:

 

Your exhaustion with the divide between Rs and Ds and your efforts to narrow it are noted. 

Never said I was perfect, just that I was going to try.  Sometimes I fail, but at least I'm trying.

Hope you are having a good day.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/20/2021 at 10:55 PM, Grumps said:

If you will read the post you were quoting when you brought up Napolean then I think you will be able to figure it out.

You said:

On 12/17/2021 at 6:24 PM, Grumps said:

I couldn't find the part where the people attempting the coup were unarmed and the people who were defeated were armed.

I have no idea how this is relevant to the discussion. Apparently, since you evaded a response, you've got nothing.

I was asked to provide an example of a bloodless coup and I did so. 

But if you want to insist that a lawless insurrection and invasion of our capitol for the purpose of overturning a legal election to re-instate the loser was not an attempted coup, fine.  Even though in the Trump case, people actually did lose their lives, if that really matters.

(Never figured you were a Trump cultist.)

Edited December 22, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/21/2021 at 12:06 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Standby for a new definition of a *coup*.  It’s the leftist way.

Using common sense? 

I'll plead guilty to that.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Using common sense? 

I'll plead guilty to that.

I think he meant you getting schooled soundly. 

[Grumps 3,704]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

You said:

I have no idea how this is relevant to the discussion. Apparently, since you evaded a response, you've got nothing.

I was asked to provide an example of a bloodless coup and I did so. 

But if you want to insist that a lawless insurrection and invasion of our capitol for the purpose of overturning a legal election to re-instate the loser was not an attempted coup, fine.  Even though in the Trump case, people actually did lose their lives, if that really matters.

(Never figured you were a Trump cultist.)

Are you lying or stupid or just playing games? Who asked you to provide an example of a bloodless coup? Please show us! WHO ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF A BLOODLESS COUP????

[homersapien 11,440]

13 hours ago, Grumps said:

Are you lying or stupid or just playing games? Who asked you to provide an example of a bloodless coup? Please show us! WHO ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF A BLOODLESS COUP????

NO, NO, AND NO. 

 

On 12/16/2021 at 4:29 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I hesitate to ask, but……have you ever heard of a coup being pulled off by an unarmed individuals against armed individuals?

[Grumps 3,704]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

NO, NO, AND NO. 

 

I can only assume that you think that a bloodless coup is the same thing as a coup where unarmed individuals overthrew armed individuals. If you believe that then there is no point in discussing things further. Have a great day!

[homersapien 11,440]

32 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I can only assume that you think that a bloodless coup is the same thing as a coup where unarmed individuals overthrew armed individuals. If you believe that then there is no point in discussing things further. Have a great day!

What, no apology for making the false accusation that I was lying?  Shame on you. 

Again, I don't understand all this stuff about who's armed and who's not, or how many people were killed.  I smacks of diversionary sophistry designed to avoid facing the truth of the matter.

I think an (attempted) coup is an attempt to take power in a non-judicial way - i.e.: outside the boundaries of the law.  This was exactly that.  Had it succeeded -  as unlikely as that may have been - it would have been a successful coup.

While the legal extent of Trump's accountability for this attempted coup can be debated, common sense tells me he played a central role in instigating it, either directly or indirectly through others. 

Trump had been trying to incite his supporters for weeks that the election was stolen from him (after warning that it would be stolen).  And specific individuals in his circle had specific courses of action formulated that common sense tells me Trump knew about.  (Such as using Pence to foil the certification of results.)

Maybe the ongoing house investigation can flesh out the specifics, but claiming he "broke no law" or throwing up arguments of what a coup must consist of (beyond my definition above) is simply a way to avoid or hide from the truth. Trump made a sincere effort at sedition and he would have gladly accepted the results had they gone his way.

Edited December 23, 2021 by homersapien

[Grumps 3,704]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What, no apology for making the false accusation that I was lying?  Shame on you. 

Again, I don't understand all this stuff about who's armed and who's not, or how many people were killed.  I smacks of diversionary sophistry designed to avoid facing the truth of the matter.

I think a coup is an attempt to take power in a non-judicial way - i.e.: outside the boundaries of the law.  This was exactly that. 

While the legal extent of Trump's accountability for this attempted coup can be debated, but common sense tells me he played a central role in instigating it either directly or indirectly through others. 

Trump had been trying to incite his supporters for weeks that the election was stolen from him (after warning that it would be stolen).  And specific individuals in his circle had specific courses of action formulated that common sense tells me Trump knew about.  (Such as using Pence to foil the certification of results.)

Maybe the ongoing house investigation can flesh out the specifics, but claiming he "broke no law" or throwing up arguments of what a coup must consist is simply a way to hide from the truth - Trump made a sincere effort at sedition and he would have gladly accepted the results had they gone his way.

I can only assume that you think that a bloodless coup is the same thing as a coup where unarmed individuals overthrew armed individuals. If you believe that then there is no point in discussing things further. Have a great day!

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

I can only assume that you think that a bloodless coup is the same thing as a coup where unarmed individuals overthrew armed individuals. If you believe that then there is no point in discussing things further. Have a great day!

 

"Again, I don't understand all this stuff about who was armed and who wasn't, or how many people were killed.  I smacks of diversionary sophistry designed to avoid facing the truth of the matter.

I think an (attempted) coup is an attempt to take power in a non-judicial way - i.e.: outside the boundaries of the law.  This was exactly that.  Had it succeeded -  as unlikely as that may have been - it would have been a successful coup.

While the legal extent of Trump's accountability for this attempted coup can be debated, common sense tells me he played a central role in instigating it, either directly or indirectly through others. 

Trump had been trying to incite his supporters for weeks that the election was stolen from him (after warning that it would be stolen).  And specific individuals in his circle had specific courses of action formulated that common sense tells me Trump knew about.  (Such as using Pence to foil the certification of results.)

Maybe the ongoing house investigation can flesh out the specifics, but claiming he "broke no law" or throwing up arguments of what a coup must consist of (beyond my definition above) is simply a way to avoid or hide from the truth. Trump made a sincere effort at sedition and he would have gladly accepted the results had they gone his way."