“Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun”
6 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Dec. 7, 2021, 11:25 a.m.

Before the 2020 election, I would have thought such speculation to be absurd. However, looking at the dynamics currently in place and the mindsets of tens of millions with completely captured minds in the  Trump cult...........and how poorly Biden is doing....it can't be completely ruled out. 

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=126125

Comments
By cutworm - Dec. 7, 2021, 11:46 a.m.
Like Reply

So being a man of data and science what do you base this claim on.  What facts am I missing??

By metmike - Dec. 7, 2021, 12:16 p.m.
Like Reply

Easy answer cutworm!

                Election stolen from Trump            

                            20 responses |            

                Started by metmike - Nov. 2, 2021, 10:50 a.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76955/


82% of Fox News, 97% of OANN, Newsmax Viewers Believe Trump's Stolen Election Claim: Poll

https://www.newsweek.com/82-fox-news-97-oann-newsmax-viewers-believe-trumps-stolen-election-claim-poll-1644756


By TimNew - Dec. 7, 2021, 1:18 p.m.
Like Reply

For there to be a "next coup" there must first be a "previous coup", and no stretch of the definition of that word can be applied.

coup

[ko͞o]

NOUN

  1. a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.
    "he was overthrown in an army coup"

What is the data that suggests an "impending coup".      The above link was long on charges,  but very short on substance.

By metmike - Dec. 7, 2021, 1:52 p.m.
Like Reply

I agree.

They should have worded it as an "attempted" coup because the first one was not successful.



By metmike - Dec. 7, 2021, 2 p.m.
Like Reply
By TimNew - Dec. 8, 2021, 3:44 a.m.
Like Reply

So, your standards for "credible" sources incliudes an article in Salon that also links an article describing "The Nasty Legacy of Bob Dole".    Obviously an unbiased source.

In any event, the authors main concern is the assorted reforms taking place to insure legitimate voters.   Things like valid id's and such.  For the life of me, I just can't imagine why there would be so much concern over something like voter id.  What could possibly motivate someone to not want to be sure of a voters identity?

He also hopelessly  misinterprets, or perhaps deliberately misrepresents the authority of State Legislators in definine the vote.    The state defines a valid vote.  I'm betting the author is not only concerned about voter id,  but also restrictions on unsolicited mass mail in ballots, ballot harvesting, all those things that make voter fraud very possible that dems insist remain in the system.    

But the main point here is that the voter still choses the winner.  The state only defines what constitutes a valid vote, and if anything has even a hint of voter suppresion, the DOJ, especially the current weaponized one, will be all over it. They've tried many times, but an argument against voter id, for instance, is tough to make from a legal standpoint.

Anyway,  there are words for people who would label any of this as a "Coup" or a "Coup Attempt" and "Credible" is certainly not one of them.