Are there any post coup attempt EX-trump supporters here?

Post Reply New Topic

What should we do when those ideas come pre-demolished, like "He is immune to impeachment" and "It was staged by antifa"?

Evidently, since they're delivered pre-demolished, there is no further demolishing required.

If only all held such wisdom, so that the delivery of pre-demolished goods would stop.

And yet for some reason the Capitol rioters didn’t set off any bombs or fire any weapons, even after one of their own (unarmed) had been shot and killed by a policeman.
The rioters used excessive force to make a political point. That still doesn’t make it a coup attempt.


That’s not what I said, and that’s not what I meant. The people get given the same recurring crap whichever party is elected because it’s basically the same establishment in charge, and they use the phony democratic system as a cloak of legitimacy. So although you people might disagree with individual things the establishment does, by treating the democratic system as sacred you are basically supporting the establishment whatever it does.

What I meant was to ask if lefists ever question their own beliefs when they see political violence carried out in the name of those beliefs.
Also, I said right at the start that I view Trump as a fraud, so when I say that he did not instigate an attack on the Capitol, I’m not defending him, I’m just stating a fact. But yes, I sympathize with his supporters.

The deaths were tragic. But I note the media-inspired language you use. “Five people died”. Yes, four of them were Trump supporters. And the only person who can truthfully said to have been murdered that day was the (unarmed) female Trump supporter shot by a policeman.

As a general principle, no I’m not, but I am honest about it. I doubt anyone in here is truly against ALL political violence, or if they are, then they are naïve. American independence was won through political violence.

Yes, he went to Kenosha to defend people and property from violent criminals, and when they attacked him, he defended himself.

That wasn't "political violence", but it was exploited for political purposes. So I am no more disgusted by it than I am by similar cases (and worse cases) of police brutality that don’t get as much attention because

I'm more angry about the fact that the authorities couldn’t use those measures to protect the thousands and thousands of people who had their lives and neighborhoods ruined by the criminal rioters, and that they only used those methods when the precious elite citadels were under threat.

Well, maybe part of the reason it’s imploding is because people are too busy scanning the horizon for some great Nazi or fascist threat to turn round and look at the reality of the liberal democracy they deem so sacred.

I am not going to condone illegality, but I’ll say now that I view the Capitol rioters as mostly decent people, and the BLM/antifa rioters - and the criminal establishment that covered for them - as mostly trash. So I am not really trying to draw an equivalence here, and I didn't mean to give the impression that I was.

You should watch the videos of the Insurrection in the Capitol.

What else could it have been----but an attempt to defile our Democracy??????

It just so happens that Congress was certifying the election of Joseph Biden when these thugs invaded the Capitol; I don't feel that this was merely a coincidence!

Is pointing out to the person that they are pre-demolished ok?

We were lucky. As far as I can tell from the news stories I've read, their plan was to get violent only after invading the House and Senate chambers. Fortunately, and against the odds, the mob got distracted, by one very brave cop, long enough for the senators and representatives to escape.


It was a coup attempt. The point was to stop the constitutionally mandated process of counting the electoral votes and thus stop Biden from becoming President. The aim was to interfere directly with an actual governmental process at the highest level, not just "make a political point."


Yes there's a lot of recurring crap. But reforms do happen, and our democratic system is what allows them to happen.

Reforms don't happen automatically, though. They happen only when there is enough political pressure. Our democratic system is what allows people to organize ("peaceably assemble") to exert the necessary political pressure, if enough people feel strongly about a given issue and are willing and able to do the necessary hard work to promote their cause, both to politicians and to the general public. This entails a lot of hard work (unless you have lots of money, in which case you can take various shortcuts, alas, though even rich people are not all-powerful -- fortunately).

But an authoritarian system, on the other hand, does NOT allow people to organize to achieve political goals.

So by "by treating the democratic system as sacred" we are NOT "supporting the establishment whatever it does." We are preserving our best option for changing the establishment (although even this best option isn't easy).


The point of "treating the democratic system as sacred" is to maintain a system where political violence isn't necessary.

Thank you for the practical demonstration.

You forgot to say "HONKA HONKA!" though. Not as funny w/o it.

BeNgAzI!! !

Julian Assange is being persecuted for exposing Hillary.

If that was really the case then Trump would have lifted his charges. He didn't.

Probably saving the best for last.

His last will be not long from now

So, the story I keep hearing, from people in this very thread, is:

"Trump gave a speech. He 'incited violence' and encouraged a bunch of his supporters to storm the Capitol on a whim. The FBI intends to identify and prosecute those people for breaking-and-entering the Capitol." These people were Trump cultists who'd been brainwashed by years of disinformation by Trump, and he riled them up that day in Washington, and they all responded. But now you're saying this was a highly-coordinated, pre-planned, special operations attempt (even though not a single shot was fired by the highly-organized insurrectionists). Fortunately, it was all thwarted by a handful of police who, despite being highly overwhelmed, and deliberately put at a disadvantage by these behind-the-curtain operatives who control security in-and-around the District of Columbia, were able to stop these Mission Impossible-style secret agents from carrying out their highly-skilled and highly-organized coup.

If that's the case, then the actual rioters, the "bumbling idiots who're more of a distraction than anything," aren't really guilty of a coup attempt if they were too stupid to even know what their role in the whole thing was. It wasn't pre-meditated on their end, and they didn't know why they were doing what they were instructed to do. Still, since they successfully managed to break-and-enter the Capitol and cause disruption, why didn't the "highly-skilled" mercenaries who were already informed of the plan and just waiting for the breech to occur not step in and carry out the pre-planned coup? They got their distraction.

So, we've got useful idiots breaking-and-entering, breaching, trespassing, looting...all illegal, no question. But none of them knew about this greater coup, and none of them were capable of perpetrating a coup on their own. They were simply enticed to riot on the words of a president shortly beforehand, as the story goes.

But they're all guilty of a coup because that was the intention of these highly-skilled, behind-the-scenes people in place before Trump even spoke. And none of these "agents" with prior knowledge of the drill seem to have been identified.


Okay, who are all these lawmakers, why haven't they been identified? If you're saying people in the crowd themselves were these skilled & trained individuals, then they were certainly aware of the plan before Trump even opened his mouth. Yet, the people the FBI have identified and arrested all seem to be a bunch of the bumbling morons who were oblivious. Also, where were all the weapons & defenses this paramilitary unit had? The Capitol police were outnumbered, yet the "insurrection" ended without a bloodbath and before military units had to do a full raid.

It's like we're now trying to tell two stories and weave them together - A bunch of morons breached the Capitol (illegal, no doubt). They were enticed by the President. But they were too stupid to know the end-game of their actions. But they're still guilty of a coup, even if it wasn't their intention and even if it was beyond their scope, because these "shadow figures" all knew what would happen in advance, and were ready to overthrow the government military style, but then suddenly didn't. And we're not sure who those people are. But international security experts says so.

This is what you're telling me?

Then the rioters we've seen aren't really guilty of the coup themselves. It sounds like entrapment on the part of the president and his operatives. And, since these morons did their part, why didn't the highly-skilled faction enact phase 2?

EDIT: And, again, in your scenario, the unaware morons, while certainly guilty of trespassing and damaging a public building, were not actually guilty of seditious conspiracy of attempting a coup if they didn't even know what the plan was.

mebbe because there were too many amateurs and not enough professionals?

Is this about my Trump game?

Trump card?