What worries me about a Biden 2nd Term

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ya...a brave cop shot an unarmed woman who happened to be a military veteran.

You're full of sh1t.!

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. 

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Well that's all very cool but.  It's here say.

Not provable.

Thus...in your own favorite words...you have no proof.

That and...ya...up yours.

Relish your own tactics Libbie.

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

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 clearly don't know what a soft coup is. But that's OK. We all have knowledge gaps. A soft coup is when the government is seized through illegal means, but not by force.

You also seem to have forgotten about this:

[Hodad]

14 minutes ago, User said:

I did not ask you to define coup. I asked you to support your claim this was a coup. 

Testing specious legal theories is just that. How many times do we have to have the same discussion? When Al Gore tested his legal theory that he could selectively recount ballots in a way that benefited him... it should have been obvious on its face what he was doing was trying to find an end around the votes that had already been repeatedly counted already. 

When you are testing theories... they prove out to be legal or not AFTER you test them. And again... a coup needs something to be successful, Trump had no support of the military, of other government apparatus, nor people... he was playing out an absurdly concocted legal theory and it failed. Even if Pence went along with it... then what? The Military is going to go along with it? Congress was going to go along with it? The Supreme Court?

Just because Pence comes out and declares Trump supreme ruler of the Universe doesn't make it so. 

A coup, it was not. 

A coup would fall under any of the crimes around sedition, treason, or insurrection. That is why I said very specifically related criminal statutes, not just coup. So, your little word games are a strawman on your part. 

As far as CATO goes... Have you ever heard of the horseshoe theory? They are so far right-wing libertarian on some issues, like immigration, among others, that they circle back around to meet up with the far left wing. Acting like because some CATO commentator's opinion on this was that it was a coup doesn't make it a coup. 

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?🤷‍♂️

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You clearly don't know what a soft coup is. But that's OK. We all have knowledge gaps. A soft coup is when the government is seized through illegal means, but not by force.

 

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."

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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."

Alternate electors is not illegal and has been used before by people like JFK. In fact, had JFK not had alternate electors, he never would have been president.

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Well that's all very cool but.  It's here say.

Not provable.

Thus...in your own favorite words...you have no proof.

That and...ya...up yours.

Relish your own tactics Libbie.

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

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Alternate electors is not illegal and has been used before by people like JFK. In fact, had JFK not had alternate electors, he never would have been president.

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! 

[User]

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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?🤷‍♂️

Yes, I know what your failed and illogical argument is: Its a coup because its a coup! Just brilliant. 

Of course there is Constitutional provision... any legal theory that Trump would have claimed supported his actions that day would be based on some legality... that could be challenged on those merits. 

You are seriously fear mongering here, that if Pence had come out and declared Trump ruler of the Universe that the Constitution doesn't specifically say what to do... so oh well, I guess Trump is ruler of the Universe! That is absurd nonsense. It doesn't matter if Trump decided to respect the decision or not... That is speculation on your part either way. Even if Trump grabbed onto the White House sofa screaming I am not leaving... WHO IS GOING ALONG WITH THAT?

That is my point. Coups involve an actual plot that would result in staying in power if they worked. Otherwise... it isn't an attempt to seize power illegally. Its just a legal theory being tested. 

Al Gore:

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? Just as "sudden" And on and on. Great. Welcome to the reality that this was an attempted coup.

You keep proving my point. You claim it was obviously a coup... but then balk and claim it was not easy enough to prove in a court of law. 

My goodness, listen to yourself! ROFL

If it ticks every box that it was a coup... then why do you claim it isn't easy enough to charge him with crimes related to it being one? 

ROFL

[gatomontes99]

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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! 

Ok, so JFK was an illegitimate president then that committed a soft coup.

[Hodad]

13 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, I know what your failed and illogical argument is: Its a coup because its a coup! Just brilliant. 

Of course there is Constitutional provision... any legal theory that Trump would have claimed supported his actions that day would be based on some legality... that could be challenged on those merits. 

You are seriously fear mongering here, that if Pence had come out and declared Trump ruler of the Universe that the Constitution doesn't specifically say what to do... so oh well, I guess Trump is ruler of the Universe! That is absurd nonsense. It doesn't matter if Trump decided to respect the decision or not... That is speculation on your part either way. Even if Trump grabbed onto the White House sofa screaming I am not leaving... WHO IS GOING ALONG WITH THAT?

That is my point. Coups involve an actual plot that would result in staying in power if they worked. Otherwise... it isn't an attempt to seize power illegally. Its just a legal theory being tested. 

Al Gore:

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? Just as "sudden" And on and on. Great. Welcome to the reality that this was an attempted coup.

You keep proving my point. You claim it was obviously a coup... but then balk and claim it was not easy enough to prove in a court of law. 

My goodness, listen to yourself! ROFL

If it ticks every box that it was a coup... then why do you claim it isn't easy enough to charge him with crimes related to it being one? 

ROFL

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?

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok, so JFK was an illegitimate president then that committed a soft coup.

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

Edited April 27 by Hodad

[Caswell Thomas]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:30 AM, Deluge said:

1. Biden's death by natural causes (makes America look as stupid and weak as ever). 

2. Open Borders. 

3. Pride Year.

4. Prohibition of all gas powered vehicles. 

5. World War III.

6. National Reparations (All white people to surrender personal property). 

7. Court Packing. 

8. Resurgence of Covid. 

9. Mask Mandates

10. US Constitution nullified. 

THESE bother you?  But not 1. Climate Change...it is proceeding without us while Republicans dither uselessly on the price of defending our Country and our Allies as if that should be debated like the price of eggs in two city markets!  But not 2. Both Russia and Mainland China are flooding our country with propaganda that is already causing great harm to our children and so much of the Country is so busy either kissing the Orange Bumps ring or defending Democracy it is wearing down our strength needlessly and very seriously. But not 3. Laying the real blame for higher prices..Trump causing Civil Chaos and Anarchy against our former great Defense Ally to the South..our southern continental neighbors the Mexicans and other South Americans and whipped them into anti American frenzy  !?? None if this even appears to ruffle ONE GOP feather while you either on about things YOU caused? 

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

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, his actions do not check every box of what a coup is, no more than Al Gores did. 

Not lying about anything. Now you claim what he did was not illegal? Um, try again:

"Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/

ILLEGAL. AL GORE TRIED TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND "SIEZE" POWER!
 

If it is so obviously a coup, if it checks all the boxes, why would there be any risk of conviction? If there is some rogue Trump juror, that doesn't change regardless of the charges. 

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

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

Really? So you can prove this?

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Really? So you can prove this?

I can prove that none of it was hearsay? Yes. I provided you with video of the events as they unfolded, direct quotes and direct witness testimony. Q.E.D.

Edited April 27 by Hodad

[robosmith]

On 4/23/2024 at 7:42 PM, Deluge said:

LOTS of credibility. 

Your side is guilty as f*ck.  

Thanks for not disputing that ANYONE can edit it and write whatever they want.

[robosmith]

On 4/23/2024 at 9:25 PM, User said:

I did not question your source. I have no interest in folks who post a link without adding commentary about what they want to share specifically from it. 

I already told you it is evidence of the insurrection on Jan 6th. It's the easy version.

There's also the final report from the Select Jan 6th Commision Hearing.

If you don't at least watch the video, that is YOUR CHOICE to remain IGNORANT of the EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE.

For the record, I believe the SWORN TESTIMONY of WH INSIDERS detailed in the video

On 4/23/2024 at 9:25 PM, User said:

I am here discussing this with you, and you have already proven you will balk at someone thinking you believe something you shared and play games. So... if there was something specific you wanted to point out, lets see it. 

I already told you I don't have to believe an ENTIRE ARTICLE TO POST IT HERE.

You CLEARLY don't even want to discuss it, cause YOU FAILED TO DO SO.

 

Edited April 27 by robosmith

[robosmith]

On 4/23/2024 at 9:55 PM, User said:

No, it certainly is not a coup. 

For it being so certain, with all the different court cases against Trump, you might think one of them might be regarding a coup. I guess it is not so certain after all. 

The best Jack smith could come up with is a real contortion of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Big eye roll there. Trump "conspired" to defraud the United States in as much as Al Gore did. 

And he didn't pressure Pence to appoint him President. The Vice President doesn't even have that power. Eastman drafted up a pretty convoluted memo for a chain of events to take place that would never have worked, even if Pence went along with it. 

He clearly pressured Pence to ILLEGALLY refuse to certify the EC votes and return the decision to the state legislatures cause a contingent election would make him POTUS.

But ONLY by illegally disenfranchising millions of voters.

You should google "contingent election" cause you are obviously ignorant about that.

You are right about one thing: Eastman agreed that his plan would never get past the SCOTUS.

[robosmith]

On 4/24/2024 at 3:52 AM, Nationalist said:

A soft coup. LOL...

Did Trump try to have the military deployed to protect the government? Yes.

No, he did NOT. 

On 4/24/2024 at 3:52 AM, Nationalist said:

Did he tell the crowd to go peacefully protest? Yes.

And also told them to "fight like hell" and they knew which he WANTED.

On 4/24/2024 at 3:52 AM, Nationalist said:

Did he ask the crowd to stop rioting? Yes.

Yes, AFTER BLOCKING the EC certification FAILED.

On 4/24/2024 at 3:52 AM, Nationalist said:

The only softness here is between your ears...or legs...or both.

I can tell you're speaking from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. LMAO

On 4/24/2024 at 6:38 AM, Deluge said:

Yes, it is editable, just like Wikipedia is. So in that case, you have to roll your sleeves up and actually verify the sources. 

You see, pervert, you can't simply rely on what's being said on the news. At least 90% of what's being televised is left-wing propaganda, so that means you have to actually read and verify sources. 

Did the democrats cheat in the 2020 election? You bet your ass they did; taking a good look at the piece of shit occupying the White House right now is enough to tell you that the election was rigged. 

Go through the sources; if you don't do that then I will help you.  

You have NO IDEA what constitutes EVIDENCE. AKA NOT YOUR OPINION.

[robosmith]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:12 AM, WestCanMan said:

If you want them to keep their reputation then express hatred for them. Your vote of confidence is slander here. 

I can tell you have NO IDEA what their reputation is. It is completely independent of MY EVALUATION. Duh

[robosmith]

On 4/24/2024 at 10:41 AM, User said:

I see. So pursuing specious legal theories that are found not to be legal... is an attempt to seize power and a coup!

I look forward to our finally locking Al Gore up for his unconstitutional (illegal) attempts to overturn the 2000 election. His conspiracy to defraud the United States went unpunished. 

So again... why isn't Trump being charged with something that serious if it was so obvious?

Biden knew what he was doing with Student Loans was not Constitutional and he did it anyway... Obama knew what he was doing with DACA was not Constitutional and he did it anyway... on and on and on... 

Gore went to court, LOST, and complied with their decision. 

Trump went to court 60+ times, LOST and decided to send a mob to the Capitol to disrupt the EC vote count. Duh

The former: LEGAL. The LATTER: attempted coup.

On 4/24/2024 at 12:15 PM, Nationalist said:

Go fck urself Libbie.

Your accusations are dumb and obviously desperate.

Your responses are 100% vacuous as usual. AKA BANKRUPT.

[robosmith]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:37 AM, Nationalist said:

You're warped. Trump did nothing to "scare" Pence. You can scream "SOFT COUP" all you like. It's nothing but a warped joke.

Trump scared Pence by getting his goons to erect a gallows on the steps of the Capitol and an armed mob to chase him down. Unfortunate that FOS LIES didn't report that to you.

On 4/25/2024 at 3:03 PM, Nationalist said:

Sally...Trump did not refuse the peaceful transfer of power. On the 23rd, the power transfer happened without a hitch.

You need to stop lying so regularly. 

ONLY AFTER his COUP ATTEMPT FAILED. Duh

[robosmith]

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

There was no coup. You should stop lying now. You look ridiculous. 

You look like what you are: a completely IGNORANT viewer of FOS LIES.

14 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hodad...your continuous harping about the insurrection that wasn't is tiring and a complete lie.

No "political party" hunted anyone.

No politician hunted anyone.

Your constant attempts to force a square peg in a round hole is ridiculous.

As are you.

Thanks for demonstrating the IGNORANCE of FOS LIES once AGAIN.

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, User said:

No, my argument has been expecting you to actually articulate some kind of real logical and rational reason for why you call it a coup. 

Your argument has continually boiled down to: Its a coup because its a coup! 

Just brilliant. 

So, back to the same obvious question I asked you before and caught you in... its so obviously a coup, that he is not being taken to court for any such related charges. 

Clearly, it is not that obvious after all. 

I am no more speculating on the outcome than you are with your fear mongering about how if Pence did what was asked of him then that would have been the end! We are off script and have no clue what to do next!

Yeah, sure. This is the same dumb stuff we hear about the rioting on January 6th. Like it was a game of capture the flag, only if the QAnon Shaman held onto the Chamber for another hour would he have been declared Emperor of America, and we all would have had to play along. 

Your kind of devotion to the pablum of "its a coup because its a coup" might be a big hit with the left-wing types at the local Democratic Socialist meetings... but when you start putting that garbage on a public forum, you need to be better prepared to explain it. 

It's a coup because it was a PLAN to ILLEGALLY disrupt the EC vote count with violence and ILLEGALLY force a contingent election.

Look that up and inform YOURSELF.