Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Overheal

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah ok. They still makes them fringe lunatics. In fact that reinforces it.

I don’t know what you hope to accomplish with that distinction. They were dangerous, armed, and came prepared. They were also brought together and propped up by the president as Patriots and very fine people. What is your thesis?

listermint

everlast75 wrote: »

Prosecutors believe US rioters sought to 'capture and assassinate' lawmakers at Capitol https://jrnl.ie/5325856

No look, your wrong.

A guy who calls himself party Guinness on the internet knows what's what. He has the ins and outs of what's a coup attempt and what's not.

Is in the know. This is merely an echo chamber of pearl clutchers.


All those legal cases going on. Amateur hour it's all fake news ... Or something.

yagan

JJayoo wrote: »

How exactly were these dipsh1ts going to seize power?

By force.

jill_valentine

JJayoo wrote: »

Why is this being referred to as a Coup?

From wiki "the removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator"

How exactly were these dipsh1ts going to seize power?

Fiona Hill, ex National Security Council, outlines exactly why here.

https://twitter.com/StephenMcGann/status/1348776267701751809

There’s a standard coup “checklist” analysts use to evaluate coups, and we can use it to assess Trump’s moves to prevent the peaceful transfer of executive power. To successfully usurp or hold power, you need to control the military and paramilitary units, communications, the judiciary, government institutions, and the legislature; and mobilize popular support.

And here she states outright that she believes the reason it failed is because of the Secdef letter that raised eyebrows a while back -

“The president was trying to stage a coup. There was little chance of it happening, but there was enough chance that the former defense secretaries had to put out that letter, which was the final nail through that effort. They prevented the military from being involved in any coup attempt. But instead, Trump tried to incite it himself,” said Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia adviser. “This could have turned into a full-blown coup had he had any of those key institutions following him. Just because it failed or didn’t succeed doesn’t mean it wasn’t real.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/after-capitol-riot-trump-officials-rush-to-keep-him-from-sparking-another-conflictat-home-or-abroad

... Which implies they were alarmed enough *then* to consider something like this a material possibility.

Overheal

Firsthand account from the officer who was dragged down the steps and beaten.

https://twitter.com/projectlincoln/status/1349951217544282120?s=21

trashcan

briany wrote: »

It's worth noting that Trump was unreachable in the first couple of hours of the mayhem at the Capitol building. Aides and officials in the WH were screaming at him to do something, but he was in the little dining room next to the Oval office watching the chaos unfold on live TV, and allegedly pleased by the fact that protestors had gotten in. it wasn't until a couple of hours later, at 3.25 PM local time that Trump made his first appeal to the protestors. There is no excuse - none - for the sitting president not to condemn the break-in the moment it happens, and the cynic in me says he waited until he could be certain that the attempt to get at Congresspeople was going to be unsuccessful before he condemned the actions of a section of his support at CH on that day.

That could well be the case. If Trump thought he had the military behind him to undertake a coup I’m not sure he’d think twice. I think I’d go along with Partyguinness to a certain extent. I think a lot of it was just a rabble wound up by Trump. If there were more organised elements involved then they didn’t do a great job. Completely unacceptable in any event.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1349546620069834753?s=19

the immortals

the immortals wrote: »

If what was a success?

The plan to capture lawmakers. I think it's very telling that Trump held off on deploying the National Guard.

joe40

briany wrote: »

It's worth noting that Trump was unreachable in the first couple of hours of the mayhem at the Capitol building. Aides and officials in the WH were screaming at him to do something, but he was in the little dining room next to the Oval office watching the chaos unfold on live TV, and allegedly pleased by the fact that protestors had gotten in. it wasn't until a couple of hours later, at 3.25 PM local time that Trump made his first appeal to the protestors. There is no excuse - none - for the sitting president not to condemn the break-in the moment it happens, and the cynic in me says he waited until he could be certain that the attempt to get at Congresspeople was going to be unsuccessful before he condemned the actions of a section of his support at CH on that day.

That is the really important thing for me.

If this was just an unruly mob that took over the capitol building it would have been bad enough but they did so with the full support of Trump and his closest allies.

Two reasons to say that:

His inflamatory speech where he invoked militaristic language of revolution, and told people the vote was illegal, therefore incoming government was illegal.

Secondly his deafening silence for hours as the events unfolded. Remember this is a president who couldn't stay off twitter for 5 mins. So lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say he wanted a peaceful protest only. Then why not be on twitter immediately when things started to get ugly. He could have been tweeting incessantly "this has gone tooo far pull back now, keep it peaceful.

Instead he watched the whole thing unfold, apparently with glee, in silence.

This has to be called out as an "attempted coup" the seriousness of what happened on wed should not be played down.

It goes way beyond simply an unruly mob.

This was a mob with the backing of the president who got over 70 million votes. His support is huge.

Overheal

trashcan wrote: »

That could well be the case. If Trump thought he had the military behind him to undertake a coup I’m not sure he’d think twice. I think I’d go along with Partyguinness to a certain extent. I think a lot of it was just a rabble wound up by Trump. If there were more organised elements involved then they didn’t do a great job. Completely unacceptable in any event.

Had they found and killed just 12 house Democrats, the GOP would have had the votes to throw out the election by objecting to the state electors and hold a 12th amendment contingent election. 12 dead, and Trump could have been re-elected by abusing a constitutional process.

People don’t seem to get this. You don’t need control of the states or the military you just needed to end the Democrat house majority, as that majority guaranteed all objections to the election would not succeed under 3 US code § 15.

What better way than to point a mob, some carrying concealed weapons, some literally carrying pitchforks, at the Capitol and fill them with 1776 rhetoric.

Kumejima

JJayoo wrote: »

Why is this being referred to as a Coup?

From wiki "the removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator"

How exactly were these dipsh1ts going to seize power?

Think about it, the politicians are in the middle of Washington, they look around what do they see? Nothing but open carry and MAGA hats. "Ahh there's nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?"




Does that seem really dark to you? No, no you're misunderstanding me Bro, because if the politicians said no, then the answer is obviously no, but thing is they're not gonna say no, they would never say no, because of the implication.


What Implication you ask?


Well the implication that things might go wrong for them if they refuse to hand over the country, now not that things are going to go wrong for them, but they're thinking that they will.


And if they don't want to hand over the country, you say?



Look thats not the issue, they don't know if they want to hand over the country or not, I feel like you're not getting this at all!

Quin_Dub

Whilst long term planning is not a behaviour I would have attributed to Trump , his clear out of the DOD in the aftermath of the Election takes on a slightly different tone in the context of the raid on the Capitol.

A regular refrain among his mouthpieces was for him to declare the insurrection act and suspend Congress until they had "properly" validated the Election results.

So , is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that Trump would have been ok with widescale rioting etc. perhaps not specifically attacking the Capitol building , but riots , bomb threats etc. in all the State Capitals where he lost and in DC.

Then he declares the Insurrection act and his newly installed door-mats in the DOD say nothing and he gets to demand his recounts.

Not saying that Trump was explicitly planning for that , but I am absolutely ok with a view that says that Trump didn't care if that happened because he only saw the potential upside and opportunity for him.

So he did nothing to tamp down the loons , nothing to dissuade those thinking/planning acts of insurrection etc.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1349772453896212480?s=19

Beautiful sight!

briany

Overheal wrote: »

Had they found and killed just 12 house Democrats, the GOP would have had the votes to throw out the election by objecting to the state electors and hold a 12th amendment contingent election. 12 dead, and Trump could have been re-elected by abusing a constitutional process.

People don’t seem to get this. You don’t need control of the states or the military you just needed to end the Democrat house majority, as that majority guaranteed all objections to the election would not succeed under 3 US code § 15.

What better way than to point a mob, some carrying concealed weapons, some literally carrying pitchforks, at the Capitol and fill them with 1776 rhetoric.

Call me hopelessly naive, but I'd really like to think that there would have been enough Republicans in the House who had the decency not to use a newfound majority gained through the slaughter of their colleagues in order to overturn a fair election.

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

Ironically, I seem to hold the mob in far lower esteem that others here but yet I seem to be castiagted for taking a different angle in this echo chamber but I'm a big boy.

We can all agree that it was a disgrace and it should never have come to that and the blame lies firmly at the foot of Trump and his enablers.

I agree that it was more of a riot than a coup. There were many dangerous individuals in that group but they were no more of a lynch mob in reality. There was no plan beyond attack the capitol building.

Not sure why people are reacting to you as if you have just walked in from a different playground and can't join in their game.

ohnonotgmail

briany wrote: »

Call me hopelessly naive, but I'd really like to think that there would have been enough Republicans in the House who had the decency not to use a newfound majority gained through the slaughter of their colleagues in order to overturn a fair election.

you're hopelessly naive

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

There was no plan beyond attack the capitol building.

The Tours the week before, the individual with the megaphone directing people with a very specific purpose, panic buttons removed from the walls of democrats offices, GOP congress members live updating the terrorists on Pelosi's location, individuals with zip ties very obviously looking for people and other individuals wandering up and down corridors shouting for Pence, Pelosi et al to come out is only some of the mountains evidence that all indicate your completely wrong

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

The Tours the week before, the individual with the megaphone directing people with a very specific purpose, panic buttons removed from the walls of democratic offices, GOP congress members updating the terrorists on Pelosi's location, individuals with zip ties very obviously looking for people and other individuals wandering up and down corridors shouting for Pence, Pelosi et al to come out is only some of the mountains evidence that all indicate your completely wrong

Do you know what a coup is?

briany

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're hopelessly naive

I asked for that, but my point being that if the mere breaking into the Capitol building was enough to shock some Republicans to their senses, then this proves that not every one of them is a craven a$$hole willing to use any advantage, no matter how ill-gotten, and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that even more of them would have been shocked by the actual killing of House Democrats, so the idea that they just would have come back in, even a few days later, and gotten down to the procedure of voting, like nothing happened, is a fairly tenuous idea in my opinion.

jill_valentine

briany wrote: »

Call me hopelessly naive, but I'd really like to think that there would have been enough Republicans in the House who had the decency not to use a newfound majority gained through the slaughter of their colleagues in order to overturn a fair election.

Liz Cheney acknowledged factual reality, and she's in trouble for it. The staff of at least one GOPer actively participated in the attack, and we have several reports now that votes against the result were swayed by threats to GOP members. How many more would join them after a mob had proven their ability to murder any of them on live television in the very heart of the political system?

There is no decency in quantity in that party any more. They would vote for whatever suits them in a heartbeat and claim they were doing it to honour their fallen colleagues committment to democracy or some ****e like that.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what a coup is?

Do you know what the word attempted means?

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Do you know what the word attempted means?

So if go to the Dail and thump a Gaurd while shouting kill Michael Martin I'm attempting a coup?

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

So if go to the Dail and thump a Gaurd while shouting kill Michael Martin I'm attempting a coup?

Ohh look a strawman, how sad for you

flazio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So if go to the Dail and thump a Gaurd while shouting kill Michael Martin I'm attempting a coup?

Stupidly, but yes.

jill_valentine

Deleted User wrote: »

So if go to the Dail and thump a Gaurd while shouting kill Michael Martin I'm attempting a coup?

If I post a completely unrelated scenario to an organised and co ordinated attempt to prevent the electoral certification process, am I making an actual point or just trying to waste space?

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Ohh look a strawman, how sad for you

Jesus, the level of childlike retorts is mad in this thread.

jill_valentine

jill_valentine wrote: »

If I post a completely unrelated scenario to an organised and co ordinated attempt to prevent the electoral certification process, am I making an actual point or just trying to waste space?

We were discussing the definition of a coup. Why on earth would I be trying to waste space? It's like the twilight zone in here.

briany

jill_valentine wrote: »

Liz Cheney acknowledged factual reality, and she's in trouble for it. The staff of at least one GOPer actively participated in the attack, and we have several reports now that votes against the result were swayed by threats to GOP members. How many more would join them after a mob had proven their ability to murder any of them on live television in the very heart of the political system?

There is no decency in quantity in that party any more. They would vote for whatever suits them in a heartbeat and claim they were doing it to honour their fallen colleagues committment to democracy or some ****e like that.

Doing what you describe would have been the literal end of the United States as we know it. There would have been absolutely no way for the two parties to move forward with any good faith whatsoever, and no reconciliation between the supporters of the parties. So, by kow-towing to one mob, Republican representatives would have been creating another situation much worse and even more dangerous. You'd think that by weighing that balance, enough of them would have done the right thing.

jill_valentine

Deleted User wrote: »

We were discussing the definition of a coup. Why on earth would I be trying to waste space? It's like the twilight zone in here.

Attacking a guard is attacking a guard. Attacking a guard as a means to get past him and kill members of the Dáil to frustrate an election is a very obviously different prospect.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

So if go to the Dail and thump a Gaurd while shouting kill Michael Martin I'm attempting a coup?

Ok so if SF stood outside Leinster House along with thousands of supporters and claimed they were fraudulently denied during last election and then you and few thousand others with weapons, stormed the dail while in session shouting "hang Leo Varadkar" what would you call it?