Is Trump Trying to Stage a Coup?

[fskimospy]

It's pointless to continue arguing with a mob of frothing-mouth children.

You can bring them dictionary definitions of the word - which stems historically from an obvious French word, and they will still stick in English words in front of it and say "SEE! This makes it a coop!"

It's pretty comical how stupid a mob can get.

People brought you definitions that showed you were ignorant, dummy.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Had this election been closer I have little doubt that the system would not have held. Trump would have found one or more judges partisan enough to hand it to him if this had come down to a single state with a narrow margin. The reason the courts held is because Trump was too far behind to make his challenges even seem plausible.

If the election was closer, those challenges would be plausible and justified, just as you asserted for Gore. Had Trump managed to win, I have no doubt we would be several weeks into protests at best, riots at worst. The most Trump can muster is a few thousand people. Coup not found.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If the election was closer, those challenges would be plausible and justified, just as you asserted for Gore. Had Trump managed to win, I have no doubt we would be several weeks into protests at best, riots at worst. The most Trump can muster is a few thousand people. Coup not found.

That's very binary. It's either a coup or not, no room for attempt. Trump "mustered" far more than your apparently willing to admit, including tons of support from elected officials. Ignored your whatabout

 

[Starbuck1975]

What? Who's crying wolf? You believe Trump's attempt to undermine our election, destroy our democracy, and attempt a coup is crying wolf? You are delusional and mentally unstable, or blind. Why don't you answer me about the behind closed door meetings with legislators and how you believe that ties in with the judicial system or the court cases? Answer: Because you can't without destroying your argument.

It doesn’t destroy my argument, it supports it. Trump made his argument, to include to members of his own party, and they dismissed him and his accusations for lack of evidence. Coup not found.

 

[Jhhnn]

Technically hypothetical, yes. But since Starbuck raised Bush v. Gore, I'll point out that a 5-4 SCOTUS denied a recount to Gore in 2000 and that was when we were less partisan than we are today, and the courts were also less stacked in the GOP's favor. So I have good reason for the assumption I am making.

And yet you ignore what's happened so far since the election. The situations then & now are in no way analogous. Fighting old battles over again is tedious & unproductive.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn’t destroy my argument, it supports it. Trump made his argument, to include to members of his own party, and they dismissed him and his accusations for lack of evidence. Coup not found.

Successful coup not found. The fact that Trump's claims lack legitimacy didn't slow 'em down at all. If they could win by lying, they would do so.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It doesn’t destroy my argument, it supports it. Trump made his argument, to include to members of his own party, and they dismissed him and his accusations for lack of evidence. Coup not found.

How does meeting behind closed doors with legislators to persuade them in choosing the electoral in his favor (against those state laws I might add), ignore the will of the people to over turn the election support your argument that it's not a coup? (He is also planning to do it on the federal level as well, which is him asking them to violate the constitution, just as he also asked the SCOTUS to do) How is that action with the legislators, part of the lawsuits that take place in the judicial branch of the government state or federal? You keep ignoring and/or dancing around my question on that, because it DOES destroy your argument, it does not support it at all.

 

[fskimospy]

If the election was closer, those challenges would be plausible and justified, just as you asserted for Gore. Had Trump managed to win, I have no doubt we would be several weeks into protests at best, riots at worst. The most Trump can muster is a few thousand people. Coup not found.

No, they wouldn’t!!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This thread is honestly comically laughable

Essentially boils down to:
-Anyone who has ever legally challenged an election is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Anyone who has asked/paid for a recount is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Challenging anything in life means you are against Democracy. It's not due diligence. It isn't oversight. It's not checks and balances. It's a coup. Accept the results as they are given to you - never challenge what you are told by superiors.


Let's forget about things like John Kerry challenging how the results came out in Ohio in 2004. Erase that from your memory (and countless others from the past) because it doesn't jive with your moronic peddling narrative of a coup. It's never been done, and it's an attempted coup - even though it's legally challenging everything via courts, which is well within ANYONE'S right to do.

 

[NWRMidnight]

This thread is honestly comically laughable

Essentially boils down to:
-Anyone who has ever legally challenged an election is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Anyone who has asked/paid for a recount is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Challenging anything in life means you are against Democracy. It's not due diligence. It isn't oversight. It's not checks and balances. It's a coup. Accept the results as they are given to you - never challenge what you are told by superiors.


Let's forget about things like John Kerry challenging how the results came out in Ohio in 2004. Erase that from your memory (and countless others from the past) because it doesn't jive with your moronic peddling narrative of a coup. It's never been done, and it's an attempted coup - even though it's legally challenging everything via courts, which is well within ANYONE'S right to do.

Nope, because there is a lot more to it than just the lawsuits, as already explained in this discussion over the last page or two.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This thread is honestly comically laughable

Essentially boils down to:
-Anyone who has ever legally challenged an election is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Anyone who has asked/paid for a recount is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Challenging anything in life means you are against Democracy. It's not due diligence. It isn't oversight. It's not checks and balances. It's a coup. Accept the results as they are given to you - never challenge what you are told by superiors.


Let's forget about things like John Kerry challenging how the results came out in Ohio in 2004. Erase that from your memory (and countless others from the past) because it doesn't jive with your moronic peddling narrative of a coup. It's never been done, and it's an attempted coup - even though it's legally challenging everything via courts, which is well within ANYONE'S right to do.

Haha, you remind me of those south park prius drivers.

Hey dum dum, john kerry wasn't the president of the most corrupt admin in our lifetimes, and trying to coordinate overturning elections in multiple states for a national affect.

Your feels tho.

 

[Jhhnn]

This thread is honestly comically laughable

Essentially boils down to:
-Anyone who has ever legally challenged an election is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Anyone who has asked/paid for a recount is guilty of an attempted coup.
-Challenging anything in life means you are against Democracy. It's not due diligence. It isn't oversight. It's not checks and balances. It's a coup. Accept the results as they are given to you - never challenge what you are told by superiors.


Let's forget about things like John Kerry challenging how the results came out in Ohio in 2004. Erase that from your memory (and countless others from the past) because it doesn't jive with your moronic peddling narrative of a coup. It's never been done, and it's an attempted coup - even though it's legally challenging everything via courts, which is well within ANYONE'S right to do.

Ugh. Kerry was not a party to the suit and had conceded on election day.

 

[fskimospy]

it is amusing how these dummies are furiously googling for any time a Democrat filed an election related lawsuit and spent no time reading them.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ugh. Kerry was not a party to the suit and had conceded on election day.

it is amusing how these dummies are furiously googling for any time a Democrat filed an election related lawsuit and spent no time reading them.

He's just way smarter than anyone. I know because he keeps telling us.

 

[Starbuck1975]

How does meeting behind closed doors with legislators to persuade them in choosing the electoral in his favor (against those state laws I might add), ignore the will of the people to over turn the election support your argument that it's not a coup? (He is also planning to do it on the federal level as well, which is him asking them to violate the constitution, just as he also asked the SCOTUS to do) How is that action with the legislators, part of the lawsuits that take place in the judicial branch of the government state or federal? You keep ignoring and/or dancing around my question on that, because it DOES destroy your argument, it does not support it at all.

We do not directly vote for Presidents, we vote for electors. There are mechanisms in place for an electoral override. Trump attempted use that override under accusations of fraud. Those accusations were dismissed due to lack of evidence. He has run out of options. At least some see that clearly.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Successful coup not found. The fact that Trump's claims lack legitimacy didn't slow 'em down at all. If they could win by lying, they would do so.

Their lack of legitimacy not only slowed him down, it stopped him dead in his tracks. I agree with you that it would be an entirely different scenario if his accusations had even a shred of truth to them, but they don’t.

 

[MrSquished]

Malicious lawsuits with fabricated 'evidence' or pretenses, meant to try to appeal to any potential corrupt member of the judicial system, plus rile your base up, plus try to subvert the legislative process with backdoor meetings, plus put pressure on election officials, with the ultimate goal to overthrow a legal election, is an attempted coup.

Also Bush sued to stop a MANDATORY recount, not Gore. To even mention Gore in this conversation is ridiculous.

 

[woolfe9998]

If the election was closer, those challenges would be plausible and justified, just as you asserted for Gore. Had Trump managed to win, I have no doubt we would be several weeks into protests at best, riots at worst. The most Trump can muster is a few thousand people. Coup not found.

Had it been closer, they would have had reason for a recount, which they were able to do on much wider margins in 2020 without even having to go to court for the privilege. Under no circumstances would Trump have been justified in repeatedly claiming that evil democrats rigged the election against him, a claim not made in 2000. Your analogy is a FAIL.

 

[woolfe9998]

And yet you ignore what's happened so far since the election. The situations then & now are in no way analogous. Fighting old battles over again is tedious & unproductive.

You should have reviewed the context of the discussion I'm having with Starbuck about that election before commenting. He's the one arguing that it's analogous, not me.

 

[fskimospy]

We do not directly vote for Presidents, we vote for electors. There are mechanisms in place for an electoral override. Trump attempted use that override under accusations of fraud. Those accusations were dismissed due to lack of evidence. He has run out of options. At least some see that clearly.

Right, and attempting to use those mechanisms through fraudulent claims is.......

 

[Starbuck1975]

Had it been closer, they would have had reason for a recount, which they were able to do on much wider margins in 2020 without even having to go to court for the privilege. Under no circumstances would Trump have been justified in repeatedly claiming that evil democrats rigged the election against him, a claim not made in 2000. Your analogy is a FAIL.

Nah, my analogy is fine

 

[Starbuck1975]

Right, and attempting to use those mechanisms through fraudulent claims is.......

How do you know they’re fraudulent until they’ve been assessed based on their merits? Can you point to any coup in history where those seeking to attain power actually followed the process within the parameters of the system itself?Trump challenged the results via the process, and his challenges have all failed. That is not a coup.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the election was closer, those challenges would be plausible and justified, just as you asserted for Gore. Had Trump managed to win, I have no doubt we would be several weeks into protests at best, riots at worst. The most Trump can muster is a few thousand people. Coup not found.

Please. You already acknowledged the bogus nature of Trump's claims. A narrower margin of victory would not have granted them legitimacy.

 

[NWRMidnight]

We do not directly vote for Presidents, we vote for electors. There are mechanisms in place for an electoral override. Trump attempted use that override under accusations of fraud. Those accusations were dismissed due to lack of evidence. He has run out of options. At least some see that clearly.

Maybe you don't realize it, but I took Civics and government in High School, which is a requirement to graduate. Did you graduate? I suggest you not try and act like you are teaching me, when you don't understand it yourself. But I would suggest you go learn about states rights, which is where voting falls under, which also includes how electors are selected.

The states that Trump met with the legislators, behind closed doors, all have state laws that do not have a mechanism to override the chosen electors after the day of the election. Each party choses their electors before the date of the election, and the legislators of those states, as required by their state laws, chose the electors by the majority vote. This means Trump was asking those legislators to violate their state laws (commit a criminal act) so he can win. Exactly what I said in one of my responses to you IIRC. So, how is asking them to violate the laws of their state and then trying to get others to join in his endeavor not considered an attempt at a coup?

No, Trump wasn't trying to override electors thru the courts. He was trying to get Millions of votes disenfranchised and voided, based off of lies and unproven accusations (the real fraud) which has NOTHING to do with him trying to get the legislators to violate their state laws to override the chosen electors.

 

[balloonshark]

The very fact that Trump installed his man in the postal service and he removed and destroyed sorting equipment right before the election was a coup attempt in and of itself.