Hodad

Was it a record violation? Do you even know the facts before you cry persecution? It's a for-profit college issuing more federal student aid than any other institution in the county. Hm...

news/national-international/grand-canyon-university-largest-christian-university-in-the-us-faces-record-37-7-million-fine-over-deceptive-practices/3458221/%3famp=1 Already doing it by levying unreasonable fines to shut down major evangelical universities. Nonsense. Oh, really? Are non-Christian universities held to the same standard? ,(They are.) so how is it religious persecution? Do you believe that being "Christian" means that the laws don't apply? BTW, which part of that post do you disagree with?

Nah, it's pretty well defined. The short version is that Christian Nationalists do not believe in a separation of church and state or the first amendment freedom of religion. Rather, they want the United States to be a nation of and for Christians. Which sucks pretty bad for everyone else. Think Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but Christian sharia.

Neither of those things will happen. This is a shallow and corrupt incarnation of the court, but even this tattered shadow isn't so far gone as to establish an executive with unlimited immunity. It's probably also worth pointing out that Biden IS an actual Christian.

Ah, the famous Akimov "Yuh huh" rebuttal. Expertly played, sir. 🙄

Your powers of projection are off the chart. Powers of reason? Not so much. You can't seem to muster a single argument for why these actions, which meet every defined criteria of a coup, should not rightly be called a coup. Instead, you simply repeat, ad nauseum, that it's not a coup. And, at this point you're just blatantly lying about the facts of the Gore recount. Nothing there was even unusual, let alone illegal. It was a VERY poor analogy to begin with, but if you have to fudge the facts it's probably time to let it go. And no, I think you're rather proving my point. You've argued for pages now, without a shred of reason, about whether the actions of Trump and his cronies can be described by a commonly understood and wholly appropriate word. Why would Smith risk his conviction by allowing some foolish juror to do the same dithering? Far better to nip that in the bud and go with the simpler charges and their stiffer consequences. Isn't that what any sensible person would do?

No, not weird at all. Many of these trials would be over if Trump hadn't cynically played every delay tactic in the book. Much easier to pretend to be a political victim if you marry the timing to politics! Clever enough to fool you, and probably some Americans. No, it will not eliminate those cases. Both are chock full of personal actions that have nothing to do with the duties of the office.

Wrong and wrong. Trumps fakes were not alternates. They were fakes. Phonies. Frauds. Forged papers. -- Unlike Kennedy, there was no close race, there was no critical recount underway (they had been concluded), and there was no reasonable justification for any "alternates." And Kennedy's late slate of alternates was approved in state court and certified by the governor BEFORE they ever reached the Vice President, superseding the Republican slate--none of which is true of Trump's fakes. More to the point, the conspirators were willfully and knowingly acting in bad faith. They all knew it was illegal. Eastman himself told Trump it was illegal and asked for a pardon!

The word is "hearsay" and no, none of that was hearsay.🙄

Gee. One might say that's exactly what the fake elector scheme attempted to do? Hence why the Eastman memo is often referred to as the "coup memo."

Again, the ocean is a body of water. As I've pointed out to you multiple times, the plans and actions of that day fit the definition of a coup. Was it an attempt to seize power? Yes. Was it illegal? Yes. Did everyone involved know it was illegal? Yes. Was it a small conspiracy? Yes. Was it sudden? Yes. And on and on. Great. Welcome to the reality that this was an attempted coup. This was not "testing a legal theory" lol. As judge Carter wrote, "Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory," There is no constitutional provision for judicial review of the certification process. There is no constitutional provision for what happens if the certification is not completed on January 6. And there is no constitutional prescription to reverse a seizure of power. -- And in any case, a group that has successfully executed a coup cannot reasonably be expected to surrender power. Trump had already been laughed out of court 60+ times. The SCOTUS had already decided NOT to entertain his claims. Your speculation that Trump would suddenly respect a court decision and surrender the power he had just stolen (unlike the other 60+times) is just laughable. And again, I apparently must repeat, Trump was charged using statutes that were clearly easier to prove and that carried longer sentences. Jack Smith likely had no interest in fending off bad-faith questions about "Hm... what really is an insurrection?" Making the clean charge--and more consequential charge--is just good strategy. I thought perhaps CATO would be a friendly source. You refuse to engage in reason, so I thought perhaps you might read along as someone friendlier did the work. Instead, it appears that you'll simply repeat and repeat the claim that these events, which tick every box of the definition of a coup, were somehow, in defiance of all logic, not an attempted coup. I guess everybody needs a hobby?🤷‍♂️

Every single thing I wrote there actually happened. It's on freaking video that you (yes, even you!) can watch. Hang Mike Pence What do you suppose Trump did while his mob was hunting Pence? He egged them on. Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., while the attack was going on, that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” "It felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that," Sarah Matthews, a Trump White House staffer, said in video testimony. ^^That's what he did publicly. Here's what he's alleged (in sworn testimony) to have done privately (and totally in character) and keeping with what he said on record to Jon Karl. Go peddle your lies to other fawning sycophants.

So, you want me to literally post definitions of the word "coup"? Articles exploring the concept? Is that a good use of anyone's time? Is this a new word? Do we need a glossary of basic words? WTF? Fine: Webster: Noun. a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group : COUP D'ÉTAT Dictionary.com a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. Cambridge a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army: Vocabulary.com https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/coup Oxford a sudden change of government that is illegal and often violent ^^WTF are we doing here? Is there any question that the loser of an election scheming to ignore and reject the certified EV votes in a scheme to seize and retain power for himself is illegal? Nope. Is there any question that's what Trump did? Nope. So why are you invested in pretending it was something other than a coup attempt? Here's a thoughtful analysis from decidedly "un-left" CATO: Yes, It Was an Attempted Coup I don't believe there is any statute in US law (related to domestic affairs) that includes the word "coup." Does that mean anything? Nope. But apparently in your world if a person can't be charged with a criminal code containing the word, the word simply can't be applied as a label. 🙄 The only argument you've made for why it shouldn't be considered a coup is that you imagine it would have been reversed (through some unexplained mechanism) if he had succeeded. That's not a real argument.

You may be old, but we live in the era of video recording. Anyone can watch the MAGA mob howling "Hang Mike Pence," and erecting gallows and literally pursuing imperiled legislators, cornering them, and smashing through the door to get to the last place of refuge--before a shot was fired to stop the incursion. All of that is recorded and shine a stark light on your revisionist lies.

Nancy, he tried and failed--and he was furious about it. You want to give him credit for failing in an attempted coup and call that a peaceful transfer of power? Hell, they were still patching the windows and door at the capitol and scrubbing blood off the floor.

No, I keep calling it a coup attempt in the same way that I keep calling the ocean water: that's just what it is. That's the definition. That's the word to describe these events. If you want to make up a new word for it, have fun with that. It won't change the unthinkable extremity of the events that transpired. Your argument boils down to, "Well it probably would have been reversed even if it had succeeded." Which is a) pure speculation and b) the same kind of willful naivete found in every passive population that sat idly on their arses and watched a coup steal their country. It happens all the time. And you think the United States is somehow magically immune to it? That's nonsense. It's a fact that we have no constitutionally prescribed response or remedy for that sort of thing. We'd have been completely and totally off script, with the man who lead the coup still in charge of the military and with support from nearly half the country. If you think there's any predictable outcome in that scenario you're dreaming.

The problem? What is "the problem"? Sorry, but only one political party has hunted legislators through the halls of the capitol, calling for the murder of the Vice President. Only one politician has tried to end the republic and seize power through a soft coup after losing an election. You're half right. There was only an attempted coup. It was, thankfully, thwarted by Mike Pence, who put the good of the country before his own self interests.

You mean *after* the coup failed? 🙄

It was a blatantly and willfully illegal attempt to overturn an election and seize power. For the first time in the nation's history, a sitting president refused the peaceful transfer of power upon which our democracy is predicated. There is no precedent for it. There is no process to deal with it. Prior to this instance, it was unthinkable. The ONLY reason we didn't immediately plunge into an unimaginable constitutional crisis is because this particular desecration of the office was a bridge too far for otherwise compliant. Mike Pence. The republic is intact today because he grew a backbone when it mattered most. What name would you like to give it? The Lousiana Purchase was unconstitutional. Presidents test powers all the time. And it often works out. This is not that. You cannot seriously be arguing that testing presidential powers, as all presidents have done, is in any way, shape or form the same thing as an attempted coup. That's just laughable. "Sure, Trump tried to engineer a coup, but Biden tried to forgive some student loans, so he's just as bad! Hyuk!" You people have gotten to the point where you can hand-wave and rationalize and forgive and support any insane thing that Trump does, but I cannot even begin to imagine the outrage if a losing Biden leaned on Harris to illegally seize power in the same fashion. That's nonsense. It's actually pretty common practice to request recounts in specific counties--particularly when counties control the administration of ballots. And that was indeed the practice in Florida at the time. And it was NOT obviously illegal. Indeed, it was the Florida Supreme Court ordered those individually recounted counties included. But beyond that, again, it's wildly disingenuous to compare pursuit of legal remedy to pursuit of illegal remedy. Trump was allowed every opportunity to appeal to the courts, just as Gore and Bush did. He and his cronies were laughed out of court 60+ times because they had no evidence and no legal standing. When that happens, it means you've lost. It doesn't mean that the next option is to stage a farking coup. Complete bullshit that you'd justify the latter with the former.

🙄Again, those aren't accusations. It's just a recounting of events that actually happened. Whether the perpetrators will be held legally liable is a separate question, but what happened happened. If you think those actions sound "desperate," yes, they were. Why do you think Trump was so desperate to cling to power?

I hope you're just being disingenuous here. Very obviously, pursuing legal clarity in a very tight election with some very thorny questions (Gore) is wildly different than attempting to seize power illegally after a dramatic loss (Trump). In no way is that a serious comparison. The charges Smith brought are a) easier to prove and b) carry harsher sentences. That's an easy choice. And, again, very obviously, the student loan and DACA issues are reasonable legal questions and examples of why we have checks and balances and judicial review. Surely you understand how vastly different that is from the coup attempt, in which there was no legal question whatsoever. Nobody on Trump's coup crew thought that the United States had been doing elections all wrong for 250 years and that suddenly they had discovered the "truth" of the constitution--that the VP can simply choose a winner. Nobody thought that. GTFO.

Trump is ineloquent, and a bit dim--and above all ignorant and incurious about the world. But he's not a blank slate. He does know some things. But crap like his constant footsie with the alt right, from refusing to denounce some elements to inviting others to dinner, are not born of his deficiencies. There is a shrewd calculus paired with a pathological need to feel liked. He will say (or not say) anything to avoid alienating people in or aligned with his base--even people who should clearly be alienated. He'll cozy up to and flatter the worst people--Putin, Erdogan, Un, the Proud Boys, David Duke, Nick Fuentes, etc. These are not isolated incidents. They are a pattern. And occasionally his beleaguered handlers win an argument and convince him that he'll lose more love than he gains by these association and he'll walk back a statement. (Well, yeah, of course he knows who David Duke is, and should have condemned him.)

I'm not even talking about the insurrection, you twit. That's a separate crime altogether. Trump didn't want Pence dead. He needed Pence. He just wanted him scared enough to feel compelled to help Trump illegally seize power through the Eastman coup plan. And if "soft coup" is a gap in your vocabulary, that's not my fault or my problem. Go read a book.

Yes, sane America knows that the Vice President isn't empowered to appoint the president. Yet that is indeed what Trump pressured him to do. In an interview hours after former President Donald Trump was indicted for an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, one of his attorneys said that all Trump had ultimately asked his vice president to do was “simply pause” the Electoral College count at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. On Fox News the following night, Aug. 2, former Vice President Mike Pence called that claim “completely false.” Pence said Trump and his “gaggle of crackpot lawyers” asked him “to literally reject votes.” “I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.” For those who might doubt him, Pence urged them to “read the indictment.” And yes, illegally overturning or ignoring the established political system (an election, in this case) to seize power is and always has constituted a coup. And, yes, the engineers of the Eastman scheme knew full will it was illegal. They just didn't care.

Do you not spot the difference between minimizing something awful (good people) and unqualified condemnation of the awful (condemning both sides)? They both involve "both sides" but it's apples and oranges. I acknowledge that Trump's full statement did include condemnation of the deplorables of Charlottesville, but he always has to walk it back a little. He couldn't tell the Proud Boys to fark off. He couldn't even tell them to stand down. He has to moderate and make wiggle room to avoid offending that substantial part of his base. And that's why the alt right embraced him. He was the politician who would make room for and normalize their awfulness. It's transactional for him, but very empowering for them.