(07-03-2024, 06:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Planning can consist of literally one meeting, e.g. call the GA attorney general and tell them to find votes.  That's planning.  As to why no one is charged, such things are difficult to prove unless someone directly involved steps forward and dimes the rest out.

(07-03-2024, 02:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK. You might call it a distinction without a difference maybe, but this imho is not so much an example of overusing it as it is an example of just misusing it for unrelated topics. Which, of course, is counterproductive, I don't deny that. I don't know about the quote at hand, but I don't really have to, I know full well that democrats (not just them) are quite masterful in doing that, eg. throwing racial questions into everything and then some, examples are plenty.
But the conclusion from that imho can not be that just because democratic politicians overused the racism accusation now means the topic of racism itself is diminished or miniscule for real. And in the same sense, I feel how many democrats did how much mis (or over-)using the 'threat to democracy' aspect now means there is no real actual threat to democracy. Imho, there clearly is, a coup attempt can't be anything but, and I would caution to take the eyes from the ball because Mrs. Bush and others tried to make political hay out of it. Critizism to her and all others that do so, but in the end it really is not about them. They don't deserve to be in this debate.



Well, I don't mean it in a snarky way when I say tell that to Mike, who said it cearly is not that. It was my main intention for posting, you just crossed my path :)

(07-03-2024, 06:45 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Sounds almost like people are operating on assumptions and not fact when stating it was a coup then.

Iy has all the markings of stupid people doing stupid things with a sprinkling of bad actors doing bad things as well. 

Big claims, like calling it a coup, require big, rock solid evidence, which I just do not see.

No doubt it was a terrible day and a black eye for the nation, but calling it a coup is too much of a reach. But that is the drum we are set to hear at least until the election is over in November.  imo

(07-03-2024, 06:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The thing is, there are coup attempts and then there are coup attempts.  Attempting to manipulate the system to stay in power is not the same as an armed uprising.  One could argue that the 2,000 election was a coup if you really tried.  Hell, many did at the time and still do.

(07-03-2024, 06:45 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Big claims, like calling it a coup, require big, rock solid evidence, which I just do not see.

(07-03-2024, 07:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, it is not the same as an armed uprising, but it also is not in any way on par with what happened in 2.000. Saying he manipulated the system makes Trump appear more sly than anything, imho it is not the right way to address pressuring calls to find him votes and the like. But sure, I will not convince you to weigh it the exact same way I do. My main objective was establishing that Trump did indeed coup attempts, I guess we can leave it at that conclusion for now.

(07-03-2024, 07:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: As said, it's not about Jan 6 alone. You can very well hear Trump talk to Mr. Raffensperger about finding him enough votes to overturn the election results. It's on youtube for everyone to see. It's also quite undisputable that fake electors were chosen and that Trump tried to get Pence to not certify the election in what would have been a dereliction of his constitutional duty. I call that plenty of evidence.

(07-03-2024, 09:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not precisely the same, no.  But here's some who disagree with you.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/24/uselections2000.usa2

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

This isn't exactly a fringe opinion on the left, btw.

(07-03-2024, 09:01 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Everything you list Trump was given immunity; all were done as official acts of his Presidency. Trump's job is to have secure federal elections, he has oversight over the state elections that conduct federal elections.

(07-03-2024, 09:01 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Evidence used in the Bragg case will be tossed based on SC ruling. Hicks and Raffensperger testimony will be tossed upon appeal. Why do you think Marchan agreed to move sentencing? He knows he allowed evidence in the case which should not have been allowed.

I am not a lawyer, but good chance the Bragg trial and conviction is overturned or a mistrial.

(07-03-2024, 09:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: So that means he should be totally free, as part of his "oversight", to demand votes are found to overthrow the result? Welp.



It's really hard for me to see why you would consider giving any president the right to interfere with elections a good thing. Guess it would take Biden to just do as Trump did, demand that party friends find him votes in states he would otherwise lose, for you to be actually alarrmed about giving a POTUS that much leeway.

(07-03-2024, 09:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yet again, I have a hard time accepting how or why opinions harbored by some democrats and left-leaning folks actually factor into all that. It does not make anything Trump did less severe.

(07-03-2024, 09:34 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Biden do it. He lied at a debate and said his son's laptop was Russian disinformation. He won by a razor thin margin and was complicit in election interference.

He was not the POTUS, and he did it, but that is OK in your eyes.

(07-03-2024, 09:34 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Trump asking to find votes he felt were casted illegally is not a crime nor election interference. It is why the FEC (federal elections commission cleared Trump of election interference) and so did Bragg's boss but keep your head in the sand as it destroys your point about Trump.

(07-03-2024, 09:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It doesn't.  I never said it did.  What I am saying is that the language and framing used paint a far grimmer picture than what actually happened.

(07-03-2024, 09:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We've had this discussion before regarding things Trump said and how they are blown up or taken out of context.  This doesn't need to be done as the actual statements are usually plenty bad on their own.  Yet the urge to exaggerate apparently cannot be curbed.  You've seen it there, I'm surprised you don't see it here.  This makes people tune out, everything becomes hyperbole.

(07-02-2024, 07:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Since my name was interjected by SSF, for the record I have said the election was not stolen by voter fraud. I said it was stolen due to our government working with the DNC to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. Biden's get handed a letter with 51 signatures saying to not trust the Hunter Biden Laptop as being legit, may be Russian disinformation.

NY Post was banned from Facebook after posting a factual story. Later we find out government was telling social media to be on alert for Russian disinformation. So, 2 times Russia was inserted by Democrats to change the direction of an election.

Now fast forward and NY Post was correct and all the social media companies who banned the HB laptop story were wrong. But our government n=knew the truth about the HB laptop being legit a year prior to October 2020, yet let the letter speak to the public as truth.

How is that not taking sides and election interference by the US government?

(07-03-2024, 09:01 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Everything you list Trump was given immunity; all were done as official acts of his Presidency. Trump's job is to have secure federal elections, he has oversight over the state elections that conduct federal elections.

Evidence used in the Bragg case will be tossed based on SC ruling. Hicks and Raffensperger testimony will be tossed upon appeal. Why do you think Marchan agreed to move sentencing? He knows he allowed evidence in the case which should not have been allowed.

I am not a lawyer, but good chance the Bragg trial and conviction is overturned or a mistrial.

(07-03-2024, 02:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, it is about that. Though I would not advise anyone to not vote for the conservative candidate, I feel it's not my place to do so. Additionally, suggesting to a conservative leaning person to vote for Biden just got even tougher for me. I get full well why they would not do that. 
Mainly, I want to focus on how what Trump did imho can not be called anything but a coup attempt. By mentioning the Georgia trial, I was answering the question of if it were a coup, why isn't Trump indicted for it.

(07-03-2024, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If the lie was believable their beliefs were legitimate.  All of this is extremely consequential to you because you're a "our democracy is at stake" doomsayer.  Most people don't subscribe to your point of view.  And rightfully so, IMO.

(07-03-2024, 11:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: First off, Trump Hates to lose. 
The 2020 election cycle wasn't normal, therefore he probably felt that the Dems cheated (somehow someway).

The fake electors were nothing more than an attempt to cause confusion and give Trump something to hang his hat on by saying it was stolen so he had a way out to save face. It was never intended to be a "coup" that's just leftist TDS kicking in, none of this would have ever held up in court (Trump knows it, We all Know it), it was just a sham all around to try to give Trump Supporters the idea that he won, and to setup his campaign for the next time. The protest turning into an "attack" on the capital was just more leftist attempts to do more dot connecting. They are separate events, but just so happen to occur at the same time. 

I think that anyone that thinks this was a coup, is entitled to their opinion, just like i am mine. I mean ffs, you keep calling him a Con Artist, but you fail miserably to see the cons.

(07-03-2024, 11:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think that anyone that thinks this was a coup, is entitled to their opinion, just like i am mine. I mean ffs, you keep calling him a Con Artist, but you fail miserably to see the cons.

(07-03-2024, 10:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: I never said it was OK.



He "felt" it? Did he have any proof? Nope, it were just his feelings that according to you made it totally fine to pressure a state secretary to find him votes. To level out the number of votes he "felt" were illegally cast for Biden, or whatever twisted logic there might be. How can you not see a fundamental problem here?
Part of me starts to wish that Biden does the exact same thing now. Saying 'I lost the state, I feel I have won though, so let's just pressure someone to find some votes for me to overturn the result. It's ok, just part of my role as overseer, also I'm immune'. I would just love to see you suddenly lose your shit over it.