January 6 Was Not A Coup

[martybegan]

yeah, people are going to be harvesting tens of thousands of votes this way!

Maybe even hundreds of thousands if the population density is thick enough.

 

[berg80]

For something to fail it has to have a means of success, and this whatever it was didn't.

Drawing up plans to commit a crime, no matter the chances of success, is still a crime.

 

[martybegan]

Drawing up plans to commit a crime, no matter the chances of success, is still a crime.

The chance has to be greater than zero, or there is no crime.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When there are reports of more ballots being returned than sent out,

there were lots of reports. almost all turned out to be bullshit.

Can you give a list of states you think this took place in?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The chance has to be greater than zero, or there is no crime.

had Pence been willing to go along they would have succeeded

 

[Lesh]

The first thing your quoted text did was to apply a condition to the term, that isn't necessarily there. There is no concrete definition or international governing body to stamp something as a coup or a not-a-coup, so opinions will vary, but most of the places I've ever seen the term 'coup' used, it refers to a sudden, violent, and illegal attempt to overthrow the government (which January 6 was, all three). Establishing that it needed a path to success strikes me as someone deliberately adding a requirement to a term that isn't there, so that his people don't fit it.

On the other hand, all that shows is that the guy is a biased writer using an obvious trick; it doesn't make it automatically a coup. Most of the coups in the world today occur in developing nations and involve the military, but they can and do also happen at the hands of bands of rebels or other non-military mobs, which describes the January 6 crowd. It is often applied also in a legal sense, in which case it doesn't need to involve violence at all; forging the President's name on a document removing him from power, for example, could be considered an attempted coup.

I think the last requirement (besides sudden, violent, and illegal) is that of intent. If the goal was to smash the art or burn the place down, I would call that a violent demonstration. If their goal was to disrupt or hinder democratic processes, I would call that sedition or insurrection (and we are know finding out that apparently prosecuting attorneys agree with me). If their goal was to replace or overthrow, though, I would call that a coup attempt.

From the many, many pieces of evidence I've seen or read of January 6, a lot of people were there to demonstrate and party on the National Mall, others were there to shout at the leadership, still others were there to basically thrill-ride through the Capitol building. The leadership and most aggressive forces, though, were there to replace or overthrow the results of a legal election, and that, to me, makes it an unsuccessful but armed coup attempt.

Obvious but needed to be said

Thanks

 

[Lesh]

When there are reports of more ballots being returned than sent out, one has to wonder about the integrity of the process.

“Reports”

Unverified and bogus reports

 

[martybegan]

had Pence been willing to go along they would have succeeded

At what? At most we would have had a muddled constitutional crisis the SC would have actually had to have ruled on.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

“Reports”

Unverified and bogus reports

In the very first hearing held in Michigan (the one at the hotel) after the elections Rudy claimed that more were sent in than mailed out in PA.

It took me less than 2 minutes to find out that was bullshit.

There was a reason that the Repubs would not allow the people at the hearings to be sworn in

 

[martybegan]

In the very first hearing held in Michigan (the one at the hotel) after the elections Rudy claimed that more were sent in than mailed out in PA.

It took me less than 2 minutes to find out that was bullshit.

There was a reason that the Repubs would not allow the people at the hearings to be sworn in

2 minutes to say "nuh uh, we wont' check"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

2 minutes to say "nuh uh, we wont' check"

No, two minutes to find a news story published 3 weeks before the election that spoke of how many had been mailed out and even then it was larger than the number that came back.

Let me try this with you....so far not one of you all have had the balls to reposed to this post from me....maybe you will find some...

Right after the election I was open to the idea of fraud

Since I was open to the idea I watched some of the early hearings on the election and possible theft.

The one held at the hotel in Michigan by the Michigan senate started with a Dem senator asking if the witnesses would be sworn in, she was told she was out of order and it was not necessary.

Then I watched Rudy say that more ballots were mailed back in Pa than were mailed out. I thought, wow that is a smoking gun. Then I did my own research and it took less than 5 min to find out he lied.

Then I watched the hearings in Ga, where they has real life data analyst (my profession by the way). He talked about statistical anomalies. He said that an individual precinct going more than 75% for one candidate was rare and that a precinct going more than 90% for one candidate was a sure sign of fraud. This sounded pretty reasonable so I did my own research. I looked at the 2016 results for Atlanta, Salt Lake City and Austin Tx. What I found was that not only is one precinct going 90% for one candidate not evidence of fraud, it is pretty common, for candidates from both parties. So, this guy was either really bad at his job or he lied.

And then I watched the first Az hearings, and they put up a guy they called an "expert mathematician", he used a lot of words but did not really say anything except a few lies about population growth and voter numbers. I did the math and he was wrong. Imagine my shock when I found this same guy's profile on LinkedIn and found out he was not a mathematician, that he had not training nor education is math or analytics. Turns out he is a financial planner that loves conspiracy theories. I am not sure if the Repubs in Az were dishonest or incompetent and did not check his credentials.


So, have you done anything like this or do you just accept what you are fed?

 

[BlindBoo]

How is a mob of angry, unarmed citizens dressed in costume a threat to our democracy, but decades of bombing innocent people around the world for geopolitical power is not?

Yeah, if all you are looking at is the actions of most of the useful idiots in the Trumpycult on Jan 6th, you are correct. Those moroonies were not the threat.

 

[Lastamender]

Drawing up plans to commit a crime, no matter the chances of success, is still a crime.

Since when?

 

[martybegan]

No, two minutes to find a news story published 3 weeks before the election that spoke of how many had been mailed out and even then it was larger than the number that came back.

Let me try this with you....so far not one of you all have had the balls to reposed to this post from me....maybe you will find some...

Right after the election I was open to the idea of fraud

Since I was open to the idea I watched some of the early hearings on the election and possible theft.

The one held at the hotel in Michigan by the Michigan senate started with a Dem senator asking if the witnesses would be sworn in, she was told she was out of order and it was not necessary.

Then I watched Rudy say that more ballots were mailed back in Pa than were mailed out. I thought, wow that is a smoking gun. Then I did my own research and it took less than 5 min to find out he lied.

Then I watched the hearings in Ga, where they has real life data analyst (my profession by the way). He talked about statistical anomalies. He said that an individual precinct going more than 75% for one candidate was rare and that a precinct going more than 90% for one candidate was a sure sign of fraud. This sounded pretty reasonable so I did my own research. I looked at the 2016 results for Atlanta, Salt Lake City and Austin Tx. What I found was that not only is one precinct going 90% for one candidate not evidence of fraud, it is pretty common, for candidates from both parties. So, this guy was either really bad at his job or he lied.

And then I watched the first Az hearings, and they put up a guy they called an "expert mathematician", he used a lot of words but did not really say anything except a few lies about population growth and voter numbers. I did the math and he was wrong. Imagine my shock when I found this same guy's profile on LinkedIn and found out he was not a mathematician, that he had not training nor education is math or analytics. Turns out he is a financial planner that loves conspiracy theories. I am not sure if the Repubs in Az were dishonest or incompetent and did not check his credentials.


So, have you done anything like this or do you just accept what you are fed?

I have questions, and I have not received answers to my satisfaction. Note I am not saying there was fraud, but I would not be shocked if it turns up years from now, and then your side will spin it as "required to save the Republic".


And bullshit on you being open to fraud, you TDS cucksucker.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have questions, and I have not received answers to my satisfaction. Note I am not saying there was fraud, but I would not be shocked if it turns up years from now, and then your side will spin it as "required to save the Republic".

Did you do your own research into those questions? Or are you just relying on what your party masters are feeding you?

 

[martybegan]

Did you do your own research into those questions? Or are you just relying on what your party masters are feeding you?

I have read enough and seen enough to know I haven't got an answer beyond "trust us, it was legit".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have read enough and seen enough to know I haven't got an answer beyond "trust us, it was legit".

What are some of your concerns, perhaps I can help you solve them.

 

[rightwinger]

Auditing the same broken process doesn't mean you will find anything.

Ballot harvesting was perfectly situated by all the mail out ballots due to COVID, and as we have seen is difficult to prove.

Not that your side would ever seriously investigate, because you got what you wanted.

OK ….let’s go there

Show how any illegal ballots can be entered through Ballot Harvesting

Each ballot is linked to a registered voter and verified when received.


The mighty Cyber Ninjas did an independent audit in Arizona and found NOTHING

 

[rightwinger]

I have read enough and seen enough to know I haven't got an answer beyond "trust us, it was legit".

You won’t believe any evidence that contradicts your stolen election fantasy anyway

 

[gipper]

Yeah, if all you are looking at is the actions of most of the useful idiots in the Trumpycult on Jan 6th, you are correct. Those moroonies were not the threat.

Who was the threat?