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

Carfacemandog

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.

I don't mean to sound overly rude here, but if you truly believe that, then you mustn't have been paying attention over the last decade, and particularly the last 4 years.

feargale

partyguinness wrote: »

Now now. Temper temper.

Keep it civil. This is not the school yard. If you can't muster a coherent response beyond calling someone 'stupid' then don't bother.

says the boy who cannot muster a more coherent response than godwin.

Carfacemandog

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what a coup is?

Attempted: "make an effort to achieve or complete (something difficult)."

Coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government"

Failed: "(of an undertaking or a relationship) not achieving its end or not lasting; unsuccessful."

It was an attemoted coup that failed, literally by definition.

partyguinness

feargale wrote: »

says the boy who cannot muster a more coherent response than godwin.

It was more of an observation than a response. A correct observation I may add. Unfortunately you may find it a struggle to justify your childish retort.

Carfacemandog

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 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

Just quoting this since some seem to be eager to ignore many of the points made, as well as others such as the DOD refusing to send help at the Governor of Maryland request (which was onky eventually granted by the army secretary breaking protocol and calling him on his mobile to ok it, going around trumps sycophantic secretary of defense to do so).

And of the capitol police chief being denied assistance on 6 separate occasions throughout.

And of republicans who were in the white house at the time stating that Trump was immediately on the phone trying to pressure the politicians as they were in fear for their lives, to change their vote.

Necro

Mod:

partyguinness, take 24 hrs off the thread and come back with a better attitude than just WUMMING people. Any issues, PM me.

feargale

partyguinness wrote: »

It was more of an observation than a response. A correct observation I may add. Unfortunately you may find it a struggle to justify your childish retort.

I'm not in the habit of putting people on ignore but if you persist in dragging this thread down I may feel obliged to do so. I'm not keen to get down in the gutter with anyone. I'll leave it at that because this exchange is an unnecessary distraction and is not fair to other posters here.
I'm out of this.

Faugheen

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.

When the joint session resumed, a vast majority of the Republicans who were objecting the election results beforehand still persisted with the nonsense.

They knew it was bull****, they saw what whipping up fear and bull**** did to that crowd and the impact it could have had on their colleagues, and they still persisted with it when they resumed with Biden's certification.

Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Matt Gaetz and all of their ilk should be in prison. At least some people, as despicable as they are (Loeffler) saw sense and withdrew her objection.

Once Loeffler withdrew her objection (only hours after peddling the same 'stolen election' rhetoric that Trump was throwing out), the nonsense being persisted by Cruz, Hawley et al lost a lot of credibility, and they kept going.

So yes, I think you are being very naive here.

Gregor Samsa

Smee_Again wrote: »

The looting has already started, no shooting though.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1349810898454638592

The WH historical society says they are confident items being removed from West Wing are being handled appropriately:

https://www.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1350096439364489218

briany

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I don't mean to sound overly rude here, but if you truly believe that, then you mustn't have been paying attention over the last decade, and particularly the last 4 years.

There have been plenty of Republicans who have distanced themselves from the party over the last four years due to their opposition to Trump. And some even voted for impeachment on the House floor this week. And Mitch McConnell, who, in case you haven't been paying attention is seen as about as steadfast a Republican as any, has been said to be pleased with the move to impeach Trump.

So while the likes of Boebert are probably beyond reach, the others who did not vote to overturn the result are not likely to have changed their minds if the mob had actually managed to kill politicians. As it is, there are Republican politicians fearing for their lives who didn't vote with Trump, but they still voted the way they did.

Smee_Again

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

The WH historical society says they are confident items being removed from West Wing are being handled appropriately:

https://www.twitter.com/Acosta/status/1350096439364489218

I didn’t actually think it was anything untoward but I went for the cheap joke.

briany

Faugheen wrote: »

When the joint session resumed, a vast majority of the Republicans who were objecting the election results beforehand still persisted with the nonsense.

They knew it was bull****, they saw what whipping up fear and bull**** did to that crowd and the impact it could have had on their colleagues, and they still persisted with it when they resumed with Biden's certification.

Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Matt Gaetz and all of their ilk should be in prison. At least some people, as despicable as they are (Loeffler) saw sense and withdrew her objection.

Once Loeffler withdrew her objection (only hours after peddling the same 'stolen election' rhetoric that Trump was throwing out), the nonsense being persisted by Cruz, Hawley et al lost a lot of credibility, and they kept going.

So yes, I think you are being very naive here.

The point I'm making is that a sizable contingent of Republicans still did *not* vote to overturn the election. The whole counterpoint to what I was saying seems to be predicated on the idea that these same people would have changed their mind if politicians had been killed. I don't take that point.

Carfacemandog

Overheal wrote: »

Carmanfacedog wrote an incredible post about that last year

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058043510/218/#post113647685

Cheers!

Link doesn't work though, I am assuming you mean this post? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113647685&postcount=8689

Funny timing and why it came into my mind is I only reread Umberto Ecovl's "How to Spot a Fascist" the other day, which can be accessed in full for free here: https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

If you removed the context and presented it to a trunp supporter today, I would bet good good money that they would jump to claim the writer is clearly biased against Trump.

The article was written in 1995. The author died a year before Trump took office.

Carfacemandog

briany wrote: »

There have been plenty of Republicans who have distanced themselves from the party over the last four years due to their opposition to Trump. And some even voted for impeachment on the House floor this week. And Mitch McConnell, who, in case you haven't been paying attention is seen as about as steadfast a Republican as any, has been said to be pleased with the move to impeach Trump.

So while the likes of Boebert are probably beyond reach, the others who did not vote to overturn the result are not likely to have changed their minds if the mob had actually managed to kill politicians. As it is, there are Republican politicians fearing for their lives who didn't vote with Trump, but they still voted the way they did.

10 republicans votes to impeach. Approxoamtely2200 did not. If you think those 10 would drown out the 200 then I can't help you.

As good as no republicans who stood against Trump remain in the party, making that a moot point unless you expect Jeff Flake and co to somehow come back and claim leadership of the party.

McConnell is nothing but pragmatism, and happily supported what trump has been up to to this point, including repeatedly breaking the law. As I said, if you want to take him at his word after the last decade... have at it.

Boebert isn't relevant compared to the majority of republican senators who would also take her side on this and have began actively courting the type of people who wanted it to succeed. It may not be nice to face up to this fact, but it is what it is.

It's easy to claim you never supported the losing side after the fact, but if this were the case they would have been screaming the same since Nov 4th. We will see based on the impeachment vote if more than half of Republican senators vote to impeach. Don't hold your breath.

emmalynn19

emmalynn19 wrote: »

Youre right, it was a failed coup attempt.

No it wasn't. Firstly, they were not armed as the legal definition of such. Not one shot was fired and no one was stabbed. And no, flag poles don't count as weapons. It was an illegal and violent attempt to COERCE the government into follow their will.
Why people here are so precious and hung up about calling it a coup I do not understand.

partyguinness wrote: »

So I am clear on this: only posters who 100% believe without question that it was a terrible coup/insurrection/putsch should post here? If that the case...then is it really is just an echo chamber.

I think a specific core of posters have been posting here for 4 long years, battling Trump supporters. Now Trump is gone they feel they have won and own the thread and resent new posters blowing in with their fancy new fangled opinions. Hence the schoolyard putdowns and dismissive sneering. :P

Overheal

Which statute are you citing that says a coup is only a coup if everyone has a gun?

There were guns. IEDs. Molotov cocktails. Blunt weapons, a 2x4 with a flag on it is not a flagpole. A pitch fork with a flag on it is not a flagpole. Killing an officer with a fire extinguisher, is assault with a deadly weapon.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it wasn't. Firstly, they were not armed as the legal definition of such. Not one shot was fired and no one was stabbed. And no, flag poles don't count as weapons. It was an illegal and violent attempt to COERCE the government into follow their will.
Why people here are so precious and hung up about calling it a coup I do not understand.





I think a specific core of posters have been posting here for 4 long years, battling Trump supporters. Now Trump is gone they feel they have won and own the thread and resent new posters blowing in with their fancy new fangled opinions. Hence the schoolyard putdowns and dismissive sneering. :P

Why are you so precious about it not being a coup? I have no idea why you think a gun has to be involved in one. Bloodless coup is a term.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it wasn't. Firstly, they were not armed as the legal definition of such. Not one shot was fired and no one was stabbed. And no, flag poles don't count as weapons. It was an illegal and violent attempt to COERCE the government into follow their will.
Why people here are so precious and hung up about calling it a coup I do not understand.

Why do flag poles not count as weapons? What about fire extinguishers as that is what they used to beat a cop to death with.

Anything can be a weapon if you are using it to threaten someone else with. Doesn't have to make use of bullets.

As for it being an attempt to coerce the government to their will, think that meets the definition of coup satisfactorily.

Overheal

robinph wrote: »

Why do flag poles not count as weapons? What about fire extinguishers as that is what they used to beat a cop to death with.

Anything can be a weapon if you are using it to threaten someone else with. Doesn't have to make use of bullets.

As for it being an attempt to coerce the government to their will, think that meets the definition of coup satisfactorily.

Or cattle prods, tasers, stun guns, etc.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Which statute are you citing that says a coup is only a coup if everyone has a gun?

There were guns. IEDs. Molotov cocktails. Blunt weapons, a 2x4 with a flag on it is not a flagpole. A pitch fork with a flag on it is not a flagpole. Killing an officer with a fire extinguisher, is assault with a deadly weapon.

https://theconversation.com/was-it-a-coup-no-but-siege-on-us-capitol-was-the-election-violence-of-a-fragile-democracy-152803
Here is a good article on whether it was a coup or not.

The guns, IEDs. Molotov cocktails were not used in the attack.

Lets wait and see what the courts decide. I'm very confident not one person will be convicted for attempting a coup. Do you disagree?

briany

Carfacemandog wrote: »

10 republicans votes to impeach. Approxoamtely2200 did not. If you think those 10 would drown out the 200 then I can't help you.

As good as no republicans who stood against Trump remain in the party, making that a moot point unless you expect Jeff Flake and co to somehow come back and claim leadership of the party.

McConnell is nothing but pragmatism, and happily supported what trump has been up to to this point, including repeatedly breaking the law. As I said, if you want to take him at his word after the last decade... have at it.

Boebert isn't relevant compared to the majority of republican senators who would also take her side on this and have began actively courting the type of people who wanted it to succeed. It may not be nice to face up to this fact, but it is what it is.

It's easy to claim you never supported the losing side after the fact, but if this were the case they would have been screaming the same since Nov 4th. We will see based on the impeachment vote if more than half of Republican senators vote to impeach. Don't hold your breath.

My initial point was about the idea of Republicans voting to overturn the election result. The following point about the slight movement on impeachment is to further broach the idea that not every Republican in the US Congress has a heart of stone.

The two objections to election results that did make it to a vote were both defeated with a thwomping bi-partisan majority, especially in the Senate. If certain Democrat congressmen and women had been taken out of the picture due to rioting, I'm still not seeing evidence that every Republican would have been whipped to vote in favour of overturning the results.

Pragmatism has to go both ways for someone like McConnell and McCarthy. There's trying to ensure the stability of his party, but there's also trying to ensure the stability of a country for there to even be a party in the first place, and I cannot think that would have been achieved where they cynically took advantage of a most horrible scenario where rioters handed them a numbers advantage in Congress such that they could overturn an election of which they had no proof was fraudulent.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://theconversation.com/was-it-a-coup-no-but-siege-on-us-capitol-was-the-election-violence-of-a-fragile-democracy-152803
Here is a good article on whether it was a coup or not.

Yeah if you ignore the off duty and retired military and police. Otherwise it meets all 3 of the professors opinion for what are the criteria. And so it does.

Coup is putting it softly anyway. They could reasonably all be charged with domestic terrorism, which is in fact defined in the law - 18 US code § 2331 part 5.

You claimed you were citing the legal definition of a coup, that the attack didn’t meet that definition; yet your article clearly indicated there isn’t one. Kind of a self own there.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah if you ignore the off duty and retired military and police. Otherwise it meets all 3 of the professors opinion for what are the criteria. And so it does.

Coup is putting it softly anyway. They could reasonably all be charged with domestic terrorism, which is in fact defined in the law - 18 US code § 2331 part 5.

You claimed you were citing the legal definition of a coup, that the attack didn’t meet that definition; yet your article clearly indicated there isn’t one. Kind of a self own there.

Will anyone be convicted in a court of law of attempting a coup against the United States on Jan 6?

Tell me how

Interview with a member of the Capitol police who was attacked last week.

Worth listening to all of it, specifically, the last 20 seconds .

https://twitter.com/HeathMayo/status/1349944401179496449

Incredible to see videos of a crowd of people where some are holding blue lives matter flags, and more are trying to kill a police officer.

Gregor Samsa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it wasn't. Firstly, they were not armed as the legal definition of such.

There’s no legal definition of “coup” in US law, because the term itself is not used in describing the act. There is, of course, dictionary definitions of it, which have been cited many times in this thread already.

But here’s an interesting legal statute from US Federal Law that is pertinent:

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

“Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

Describes Trump, his advisors and the mob pretty accurately.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Will anyone be convicted in a court of law of attempting a coup against the United States on Jan 6?

As your own source indicated there is not a statute for it. Coup is a political term, not one in criminal code. There are charges already being issued for things like seditious conspiracy and advocating overthrow of government - 18 US code § 2384 & 2385, among other criminal statutes.

You claimed there was a legal definition for a coup and that’s not the case. Similar for “collusion” lest we go through this whole song and dance again

Overheal

Biden’s inaugural is going to be lit 🔥

https://twitter.com/rebeccashabad/status/1350043944378376195?s=21

duploelabs

You're all missing the rules. It's not a coup, because coups only happen in ****hole countries and are orchestrated by the US themselves and certainly don't happen in the greatest democracy on earth. Its also not a coup because they didn't carry guns. Its also not a coup because they're maniacs and lunatics, and of course wearing body armour cable ties and carrying bear repellant is how they usually dress of a Wednesday. They're also not organised because the cb radio and earpieces they wore are because they don't carry phones. They're also not terrorists because they've white skin and are Christian.

Once you follow these rules, it's quite easy to see that this was just the same as someone protesting to have equality

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Will anyone be convicted in a court of law of attempting a coup against the United States on Jan 6?

Exactly the crime trump was impeached for

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

As your own source indicated there is not a statute for it. Coup is a political term, not one in criminal code. There are charges already being issued for things like seditious conspiracy and advocating overthrow of government - 18 US code § 2384 & 2385, among other criminal statutes.

You claimed there was a legal definition for a coup and that’s not the case. Similar for “collusion” lest we go through this whole song and dance again

I was referring to the legal definition of being armed.

So we are coming to a consensus that none of the Jan 6 attackers will be charged, let alone convicted, of attempting a coup.