• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
To repeat:

Agreed. They needlessly complicate things.

Suppose Pence went along with the cockamamie scheme to refuse to certify electors, nobody gets 270 votes in the EC, the election gets thrown into the House, and Trump wins ("wins"). Would you regard that as a coup?

Depends on the specifics, but probably yes, with the lion's share of the blame on Pence for actually taking the unconstitutional steps to make it happen. Still can't see any plausible way for him to refuse the certification that the action wouldn't be challenged, and Pence likely going to the hoosegow.

And that's how I see the whole crew; lots of yapping about what they're gonna do, but too timid to actually do it.

So it's probably an attempted coup.

Pence would not get the lion's share of blame: It starts with the president. Pence would have been following orders ........


:thumbsup: Sounds like we are all in agreement now.
 
Admittedly, I was powerfully turned off by his "it's not up for debate" approach (which I note you didn't address). That's not what intelligent people say. That's what exceptionally stupid people say when they can't argue their point yet demand it be accepted as fact. Theres a term for that.

In this context it means "there is great agreement among people who have actually studied the subject and understand the concept and possible versions of a coup." He then goes on to demonstrate just that by pointing out and explaining some of those categories which are often left unconsidered by people who have not studied this at all. He also names and characterizes his sources. So he, in fact, DOES argue the point.

Tommok
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.

Reminds me of Kellyanne's "Alternative facts" when trying to spin Sean Spicer's lies.
 
Freaking Trump supporting morons yesterday claim Jan. 6 was a set up by Dems and FBI:


MTG and Matt Gaetz Brought out a video where they Accused Ray Epps of being an FBI plant, Ray Epps is an Oklahoma Bombing Conspiracy theorist who believed the FBI blew up babies in the Alfred P Morrow building to destroy the Militia Movement!
He is an Original Waco Whacko Oath Keeper nut job!
 
Seems like just so much dithering over finer details. To me attempting to forcibly interfere with the lawful transfer of power crosses a line, and after that point semantics doesn't seem terribly useful for trying to minimize the significance.

the problem is Thermal's argument appears to be that it didn't feel significant so it's not a coup
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom