36 ms·

He literally attempted a coup, it's pretty amazing people are still trying to act like this is exaggeration or unreasonable. It's not guaranteed, no, and I sin

by Latty 2y ago

He literally attempted a coup, it's pretty amazing people are still trying to act like this is exaggeration or unreasonable. It's not guaranteed, no, and I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections, but it's a very reasonable assumption that they are going to do what they've said they'll do and tried to do: install judges that will swing things their ways, suppress voters who don't support them, punish anyone who opposes them, inspire and promote political violence against anyone who opposes them, and gerrymander as much as possible. That's enough to functionally end US democracy if they do it well. That's not some wild prediction or unlikely outcome, it's the logical continuation of their previous actions. Someone attempting something they tried before isn't unexpected. He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not?

objektif 2y ago
[flagged]
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aredox 2y ago
    ... And then you have Trump refusing to say he would accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, calling bog standard politicians "internal enemies", wishing total obedience from generals and dreaming of using the military to crack down on civilians... Brown shirts are just civil disobedience in your book?
- Filligree 2y ago
  He failed at a coup, but it's hard to pretend he didn't make the attempt. You're right that the failure was inevitable. That time. Neither of us can read the future, here.
- Latty 2y ago
  Attempting it and failing doesn't mean he didn't attempt it. He actively tried to stop the results being certified, he tried to get people to fraudulently invent votes for him. We have the Trump–Raffensperger call on tape, the evidence is right there, it's an indisputable fact by anyone who cares about reality. And no, I wouldn't be wrong, because it's a fact he did try to do that, and even if they did—for whatever reason—decide not to try it again, that doesn't change it being what any reasonable person should assume they will do.
- flylikeabanana 2y ago
  >The problem is will you admit you were dead wrong and potentially spewing propaganda if democracy survives Trump’s second term? The answer to this question is the same as the answer to "what if climate change is a hoax", and that is that I would love to be wrong and would gladly admit it rather than live under a dictator or on a dying planet
groestl 2y ago
> He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not? That's the key observation.
I-M-S 2y ago
The USA uses a gerrymandered, two-party, first-past-the-post system with electoral college to boot. I for one would stop short from calling that a system that accurately reflects the will of the populace.
- block_dagger 2y ago
  I agree but in this case he won the popular vote and took the senate and house taboot.
toephu2 2y ago
Where is any evidence he actually attempted a coup? Here is evidence he told the protestors to be peaceful: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 He never said "Storm the Capitol!!" or anything like that.
- Latty 2y ago
  It's a fact he attempted a coup, the evidence is in the public record, the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was literally recorded and we have it. He was calling around everyone certifying the results pressuring them not to do so, and asking people to "find votes" for him. The mob storming the capital was a part of the whole, not the coup in its entirety, focusing on it as though it was the whole thing is absurdly misleading.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Atreiden 2y ago
      > If you have listened to the call or read the transcript and come away thinking "wow, Trump really tried to rig the election" then I don't know what to tell you. It's just plainly obvious that he did not do that, and I struggle to even comprehend how that could be a reasonable conclusion. This is probably just sea-lioning, but I went back to re-read that transcript on the chance that this was an earnest comment and my previous view was colored. There is no other way to read this transcript than Trump trying to strong-arm them into refusing to certify the election results. He says "find me this number of votes" multiple times, and the direct context was "you're facing criminal charges for this if you don't do as I am saying". Here's a few of the relevant snippets, with context, for anyone reading this far: ---- > Trump: But I won’t … this is never … this is … We have some incredible talent said they’ve never seen anything … Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they’re very substantial numbers. But I think you’re going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new and they don’t have a seal and there’s the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt. And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. > Trump: No, but this was. That’s OK. But I got like 78 percent in the military. These ballots were all for … They didn’t tell me overseas. Could be overseas too, but I get votes overseas too, Ryan, you know in all fairness. No they came in, a large batch came in and it was, quote, 100 percent for Biden. And that is criminal. You know, that’s criminal. OK. That’s another criminal, that’s another of the many criminal events, many criminal events here. Oh, I don’t know, look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality. But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffenspe... ---- You really 'struggle to comprehend how that could be a reasonable conclusion'? There's no hint of a threat anywhere in there, in your opinion?
rootusrootus 2y ago
> I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections The logical path here is for red states to cancel elections and appoint electors to send in January 2029. The feds cannot do it themselves, but they do not need to. The elections clause of the constitution does not apply to presidential elections, and all the constitution says about that is that the states may choose how to appoint electors, as long as it all happens on the same day.

by Latty 2y ago

objektif 2y ago

[flagged]

Ancapistani 2y ago
[flagged]
- aredox 2y ago
  ... And then you have Trump refusing to say he would accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, calling bog standard politicians "internal enemies", wishing total obedience from generals and dreaming of using the military to crack down on civilians... Brown shirts are just civil disobedience in your book?
Filligree 2y ago
He failed at a coup, but it's hard to pretend he didn't make the attempt. You're right that the failure was inevitable. That time. Neither of us can read the future, here.
Latty 2y ago
Attempting it and failing doesn't mean he didn't attempt it. He actively tried to stop the results being certified, he tried to get people to fraudulently invent votes for him. We have the Trump–Raffensperger call on tape, the evidence is right there, it's an indisputable fact by anyone who cares about reality. And no, I wouldn't be wrong, because it's a fact he did try to do that, and even if they did—for whatever reason—decide not to try it again, that doesn't change it being what any reasonable person should assume they will do.
flylikeabanana 2y ago
>The problem is will you admit you were dead wrong and potentially spewing propaganda if democracy survives Trump’s second term? The answer to this question is the same as the answer to "what if climate change is a hoax", and that is that I would love to be wrong and would gladly admit it rather than live under a dictator or on a dying planet

groestl 2y ago

> He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not? That's the key observation.

I-M-S 2y ago

The USA uses a gerrymandered, two-party, first-past-the-post system with electoral college to boot. I for one would stop short from calling that a system that accurately reflects the will of the populace.

block_dagger 2y ago
I agree but in this case he won the popular vote and took the senate and house taboot.

toephu2 2y ago

Where is any evidence he actually attempted a coup? Here is evidence he told the protestors to be peaceful: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 He never said "Storm the Capitol!!" or anything like that.

Latty 2y ago
It's a fact he attempted a coup, the evidence is in the public record, the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was literally recorded and we have it. He was calling around everyone certifying the results pressuring them not to do so, and asking people to "find votes" for him. The mob storming the capital was a part of the whole, not the coup in its entirety, focusing on it as though it was the whole thing is absurdly misleading.
- andrewla 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Atreiden 2y ago
    > If you have listened to the call or read the transcript and come away thinking "wow, Trump really tried to rig the election" then I don't know what to tell you. It's just plainly obvious that he did not do that, and I struggle to even comprehend how that could be a reasonable conclusion. This is probably just sea-lioning, but I went back to re-read that transcript on the chance that this was an earnest comment and my previous view was colored. There is no other way to read this transcript than Trump trying to strong-arm them into refusing to certify the election results. He says "find me this number of votes" multiple times, and the direct context was "you're facing criminal charges for this if you don't do as I am saying". Here's a few of the relevant snippets, with context, for anyone reading this far: ---- > Trump: But I won’t … this is never … this is … We have some incredible talent said they’ve never seen anything … Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they’re very substantial numbers. But I think you’re going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new and they don’t have a seal and there’s the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt. And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. > Trump: No, but this was. That’s OK. But I got like 78 percent in the military. These ballots were all for … They didn’t tell me overseas. Could be overseas too, but I get votes overseas too, Ryan, you know in all fairness. No they came in, a large batch came in and it was, quote, 100 percent for Biden. And that is criminal. You know, that’s criminal. OK. That’s another criminal, that’s another of the many criminal events, many criminal events here. Oh, I don’t know, look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality. But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffenspe... ---- You really 'struggle to comprehend how that could be a reasonable conclusion'? There's no hint of a threat anywhere in there, in your opinion?

rootusrootus 2y ago

> I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections The logical path here is for red states to cancel elections and appoint electors to send in January 2029. The feds cannot do it themselves, but they do not need to. The elections clause of the constitution does not apply to presidential elections, and all the constitution says about that is that the states may choose how to appoint electors, as long as it all happens on the same day.