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

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If he got a vote to amend the constitution to allow more than two terms?

He'd try something outrageous like that, I know that for sure

briany

newhouse87 wrote: »

look we wont agree i just think they are nut jobs who have been brainwashed by qanon etc. but i don't think it was an attempted coup.

They wanted to 'Stop the Steal'. They were unhappy about the election result. Trump fanned the flames of that anger in his speech, and told that crowd to march to the Capitol to encourage those inside to overturn the result. Then, some of that crowd got violent and stormed into the building. I think it's fair to assume that these people were also unhappy about the election result, only they were prepared to use physical force to overturn the result. A coup can be defined thusly,

"the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"

The leaders of the group who forced their way into the Capitol building certainly wanted to bypass Congress, by force, if necessary, and install Trump as president for a second term. That it was relatively shoddily organised does not demote it from status of 'attempted coup'.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He'd try something outrageous like that, I know that for sure

Yeah, it wouldn't be illegal though. That's a relatively new rule.

newhouse87

duploelabs wrote: »

If you're to counter to the evidence presented to you in good faith rather than just saying 'nah i don't believe it' you might be taken more seriously than the usual trolls who drop in here

you are posting videos of people screaming hang pence etc, at protesst over the summer chants of pigs in blankets fry them like bacon, i thought they were wrong but did i think that group were going to go around killing cops and frying them no, sorry i just don't get as revved up about groups of idiots roaring and shouting. A difference of opinion is ok, some of ye really are quite agitated individuals.

duploelabs

newhouse87 wrote: »

you are posting videos of people screaming hang pence etc, at protesst over the summer chants of pigs in blankets fry them like bacon, i thought they were wrong but did i think that group were going to go around killing cops and frying them no, sorry i just don't get as revved up about groups of idiots roaring and shouting. A difference of opinion is ok, some of ye really are quite agitated individuals.

Ok, so you've watched the video evidence of the coordinated armed militia moving in to the capitol building under the cover of the mob as shown in the second half of the sky news piece I posted?

Edit: I'm not just posting an opinion, I'm showing proper evidence, please counter with your own same evidence

one armed dwarf

newhouse87 wrote: »

A difference of opinion is ok, some of ye really are quite agitated individuals.

Shouting for execution of elected officials = mere difference of opinion?

Here I thought it was the left who were supposed to have a 'derangement syndrome', lol

newhouse87

duploelabs wrote: »

Ok, so you've watched the video evidence of the coordinated armed militia moving in to the capitol building under the cover of the mob as shown in the second half of the sky news piece I posted?

Edit: I'm not just posting an opinion, I'm showing proper evidence, please counter with your own same evidence

Genuine question, with regards to guns, is it allowed in DC?
EDIT: Just Checked no it seems.

newhouse87

one armed dwarf wrote: »

Shouting for execution of elected officials = mere difference of opinion?

Here I thought it was the left who were supposed to have a 'derangement syndrome', lol

what are you talking about?

jill_valentine

briany wrote: »

Well, they sort of were a joke, i.e. 4Chan seemed amused that the media picked up on the term as if it was a real threat, just like 4Chan claims they started the 'OK' sign being a WN thing as a joke, but this is the problem with at least a section of the American far-right, trying to mix in edgy humour with serious political beliefs so as to obfuscate what is a joke and what is in earnest. I don't doubt they're still a fringe of a fringe, but they lose their joke credentials when they actually fire upon people.

That tactic, of wrapping serious things in goofy names and memey iconography, is an old reliable one they used to promote on Stormfront all the time going back at least ten years.

They loved it because it meant they could mainstream their **** into online discussions while pretending not to, and anybody who recognises what they're doing has to waste time and energy explaining to everyone else it's not a joke. Acting dumb when you see somebody else doing it was also encouraged.

For that reason, it's probably not worth anyone's time humoring people still trying to pretend this wasn't what it was. Whether they intend to or not - and lbr, they usually do - it only serves to bog down reality based conversation in explaining that yes, indeed, the sky is blue, to somebody who will continue to pretend they haven't figured that out.

duploelabs

newhouse87 wrote: »

Genuine question, with regards to guns, is it allowed in DC?
EDIT: Just Checked no it seems.

No, it's not. But as shown in several videos from reputable sources that some protesters were armed with guns

newhouse87

duploelabs wrote: »

No, it's not. But as shown in several videos from reputable sources that some protesters were armed with guns

yes and thats wrong but here another article saying it wasnt a coup.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-capitol-2020-election-trump/

Anyway soccer starting so im logging off. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

VinLieger

newhouse87 wrote: »

yes and thats wrong but here another article saying it wasnt a coup.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-capitol-2020-election-trump/

Anyway soccer starting so im logging off. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Good for you, you googled exactly what you were looking for you and found someone to support your viewpoint, there's god knows how many articles that say exactly the opposite so your point remains meaningless.

duploelabs

newhouse87 wrote: »

yes and thats wrong but here another article saying it wasnt a coup.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-capitol-2020-election-trump/

Anyway soccer starting so im logging off. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

I would consider Fiona Hill's experience and therefore opinion, higher than the one who wrote the article above. That is why I posted it, along with reams of other evidence from multiple sources, and you've got one headline. But hey. confirmation bias and all that

Tea drinker

newhouse87 wrote: »

what are you talking about?

I think it's when they show video of trump/right/alt-right-fascist/conservative angry mob doing illegal things it's truth, when you post video of their gang declaring independence in whatever ****hole city they invaded, calling for the death of cops, burning down business and homes, killing people, beating people it's whataboutery.
But does any of this even matter? America has been killing it's own people consistently on the street, experimenting on them in prisons, killing unarmed students demonstrating, manufacturing wars killing or injuring millions, all supported by their yellow press but conversely they are a beacon of freedom.
There was 217+ arrested at trumps inaugration, there's always trouble in US politics, it seems to be the family business.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-parts-capital-inauguration-day/story?id=44925970

Is there a "right side and wrong side" in such dysfunctional country?

wes

Sorry if this was posted already:
41 minutes of fear: A video timeline from inside the Capitol siege


Those who are denying the 1/6 coup attempt imo is no different than active support of it, and the terrorism from there fellow right wingers. The open lack of condemnation and constant minimization from a majority of right wingers is rather telling, considering that many of them would make such demands of others constantly.

salmocab

I think it’s fair to say just because it had zero chance of success and was carried out by dumb fools doesn’t mean it wasn’t an attempted coup. The fact that they are idiots going to bat for their chief idiot doesn’t lessen what they were attempting.

Gunmonkey

newhouse87 wrote: »

an attempted coup realistically needs the military to take part, may have been some army there, vets etc, but no it was not remotely close to being a coup.

But they did have help from the military...all wings of it the US defense forces were part of it.

newhouse87

duploelabs wrote: »

I would consider Fiona Hill's experience and therefore opinion, higher than the one who wrote the article above. That is why I posted it, along with reams of other evidence from multiple sources, and you've got one headline. But hey. confirmation bias and all that

Boring match so far,
So when you post a link backing up your argument its a coup its ok but when i do saying it wasnt a coup its confirmation bias-gotcha,
Anyway according to coup experts on this article the capitol hill riot did not meet all 3 criteria to be classified as a coup, like you with Fiona Hill, i will agree with their opinion.

newhouse87

VinLieger wrote: »

Good for you, you googled exactly what you were looking for you and found someone to support your viewpoint, there's god knows how many articles that say exactly the opposite so your point remains meaningless.

everybody's point here is meaningless so.

briany

salmocab wrote: »

I think it’s fair to say just because it had zero chance of success and was carried out by dumb fools doesn’t mean it wasn’t an attempted coup. The fact that they are idiots going to bat for their chief idiot doesn’t lessen what they were attempting.

In 1975, Lynne Fromme from the Manson Family was charged for attempting to assassinate then-president Gerald Ford. She pointed a gun at him, did not chamber a bullet, and did not fire, but she still did 34 years behind bars for that crime. Now, we could make the similar argument that because her attempt to kill Ford was shoddy, it wasn't really an attempt to assassinate Ford. Perhaps she was just trying to make a statement and merely scare Ford, but that didn't save her (what also didn't save her was her apparent refusal to cooperate with her own defence team). I think what matters here is the target and intent, and the optics of what you're doing. So on the one hand, that meant attempted assassination of a sitting president, and on the other hand, a mob of violent protestors with an erected gallows outside, trying to get into the Congress chamber during the certification of the presidential election isn't a coup attempt? Hmmm...

yagan

newhouse87 wrote: »

Boring match so far,
So when you post a link backing up your argument its a coup its ok but when i do its confirmation bias-gotcha,
Anyway according to coup experts on this article the capitol hill riot did not meet all 3 criteria to be classified as a coup, like you with Fiona Hill, i will agree with their opinion.

It was a coup attempt. Just because they didn't succeed doesn't mean they weren't trying to commit a coup.

They didn't march on the capital building for a tour.

If you're just going to troll then just admit it.

newhouse87

yagan wrote: »

It was a coup attempt. Just because they didn't succeed doesn't mean they weren't trying to commit a coup.

They didn't march on the capital building for a tour.

If you're just going to troll then just admit it.

A coup in your opinion not mine, just posted and article where it shows it didn't satisfy all 3 parameters to be characterized as a coup. Coup experts not some random Irish people on a forum.

VinLieger

newhouse87 wrote: »

everybody's point here is meaningless so.

Maybe argue your own points instead of using others words to do it for you, present your own argument.

extra gravy

duploelabs wrote: »

Fiona Hill disagrees with you

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/capitol-riot-self-coup-trump-fiona-hill-457549

So does the FBI and federal prosecutors but the boards experts know better.

newhouse87

VinLieger wrote: »

Maybe argue your own points instead of using others words to do it for you, present your own argument.

I just posted an article where coup experts have said that it didn't satisfy 3 parameters to be classified as a coup, yet many on here will disagree and just post videos of angry guys shouting claiming that merits it being called a coup.

duploelabs

newhouse87 wrote: »

A coup in your opinion not mine, just posted and article where it shows it didn't satisfy all 3 parameters to be characterized as a coup. Coup experts not some random Irish people on a forum.

You have been shown evidence via videos, you have been shown opinion by a world expert that it was, yet you still believe that it wasn't

newhouse87

duploelabs wrote: »

You have been shown evidence via videos, you have been shown opinion by a world expert that it was, yet you still believe that it wasn't

I have shown you an article where coup experts have laid out 3 parameters for it to be called a coup, 2/3 were met so it cant be called a coup.

Professor Moriarty

newhouse87 wrote: »

yes and thats wrong but here another article saying it wasnt a coup.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-capitol-2020-election-trump/

Anyway soccer starting so im logging off. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

FFS, that article was written before the author even knew that people had died. I fcuking hate that when people just dump an article without having even read it themselves. Wasting my time.

duploelabs

newhouse87 wrote: »

I have shown you an article where coup experts have laid out 3 parameters for it to be called a coup, 2/3 were met so it cant be called a coup.

Do you don't value Fiona Hill's view on it then? Weighing up the experience from the writers of the piece you posted versus her view, her experience would far outweigh them

newhouse87

duploelabs wrote: »

Do you don't value Fiona Hill's view on it then? Weighing up the experience from the writers of the piece you posted versus her view, her experience would far outweigh them

https://twitter.com/prof_powell/status/1347001966975721472

Its her view and shes entitled to it, i just dont agree with it. Have a read of Coup experts Jonathan Powell's thread