The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

To wit, if Trump had succeeded in remaining in the White House after January 6th, he would have continued to control the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI.  Perhaps you aren't aware that he had appointed his sycophantic flying monkeys to run all of those institutions, with the partial exception of the CIA (after Pompeo left the CIA to become Secretary of State.)

This is what you’re missing, William. Any coup (an unconstitutional takeover) is reliant on all of those patriots who swear oaths and allegiance going along with something illegal. You’d need their support of such a manoeuvre in advance, before trying something like that. I think its abundantly clear that Trump, nor the rabble of the disenfranchised had the acquiescence of these agencies and the military. For that reason it’s a fantasy. I do understand why you are so caught up in it. 

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.“

Gustave Le Bon. 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

This is what you’re missing, William. Any coup (an unconstitutional takeover) is reliant on all of those patriots who swear oaths and allegiance going along with something illegal. You’d need their support of such a manoeuvre in advance, before trying something like that. I think its abundantly clear that Trump, nor the rabble of the disenfranchised had the acquiescence of these agencies and the military. For that reason it’s a fantasy. I do understand why you are so caught up in it. 

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.“

Gustave Le Bon. 

 

 

 It was a fantasy, but real nonetheless. It was an attempted coup that we all could see coming. It wasn’t effective, nor was the follow on cooperation of unelected leadership secured. It’s not clear what would have happened had Pence gone along. But Trump was then and still is now claiming the election was stolen, and he is planning the next go around. What would it take for you to see Trump as a traitor? Is the bar not high enough? 

[Paul Brancato]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul-

IMHO

You seem to agree with me. 

I do not trust the M$M, or the aligned, coopted, legally corrupt political parties and the censorious panopticon state. 

This makes me a Trumper? 

Did history start with Trump? Has the Deep State, that controls so much of US military-foreign-trade policy, disappear during the Trump Presidency? 

Yes, I think the Donks and 'Phants are equally repulsive.  I thought Trump an unnecessarily polarizing President...though Bush Jr. was miles and miles and miles and miles worse. 

I plead guilty. Should I be sent to a reorientation center for treatment? 

This is called straw man argument isn’t it? Why quote me if you aren’t going to literally respond to at least a few points. Yes we agree sometimes, but disagree other times. Why can’t you see that right wing zealots have been far more disruptive of civil discourse, far more divisive? 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

How was this rabble going to take over the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc etc? Agencies that aren’t pro Trump. 

 

Chris,

Trump's plan didn't consist of only the riot at the capitol. There were a number of other measures his team discussed and took in order to thwart the transfer of power to Biden.

Had they succeeded, who knows what kind of protests or riots would have resulted. If I were a younger, stronger man, I certainly would have been angry as hell and would have been out protesting. I'm certain there would have been mass protests throughout the country. The trumpsters may have likewise gone out and had mass protests against us. Who knows how this would have ended up. It may have lead to civil war for all we know. And remember, Trump would have still been in control of the armed forces. I suspect they would have revolted against Trump, but who knows.

There have been reports that GOP-controlled state legislatures have been busy making laws that would allow them more control over the local electoral system so that they can control what can be done in response to future fake-disputed counts.

What Trump did is serious business and measures should be taken to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. And Trump and his ilk should be prosecuted and imprisoned for their coup attempt.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

No, no Sandy.  I was talking about the spin -- it's way over the top, and off-putting for me, and I imagine it would be off-putting to any who are on the fence about issues.  But, no, I'm not seeing lies like I see at Fox News.

 

Ooooh! Okay, I can see that. I sometimes watch CNN and I detect considerable spin there, which I find annoying but can easily overlook. It is like when I used to watch both MSNBC and Fox News twenty years ago. They both had spin (though maybe more so on Fox) but back then the lies on Fox weren't so blatant. It was more hatred than lies back then, from people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin.

 

10 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

To be fair, I'm on the east coast and can't stay up late enough to watch RM or LO-- I'm stuck with Ari Melber and Joy Reed.  Their target audience seem to be children.

 

LOL

 

10 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Chris Hayes is great--informative, no spin, and great guests.  And that's as late as I can stay up :>).

 

I see a little bit of Chris Hayes since his show is before Rachel Maddow. Yeah his show is good too, a lot like Rachel Maddow's and Lawrence O'Donnell's.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Perhaps you [Chris] aren't aware that [Trump] had appointed his sycophantic flying monkeys to run all of those institutions, with the partial exception of the CIA (after Pompeo left the CIA to become Secretary of State.)

 

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that.

During Trump's last month, he was replacing heads of federal government agencies with his own people for no apparent reason. At the time it made no sense, given that he would soon be out of office and the people he'd hired had no credentials for the jobs they'd been given.

Later, when it became more and more clear that Trump had no intention of leaving office, it became clear that he'd installed his people so he'd have as much control over the government as possible during the period when people would be trying to get rid of him.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

This is what you’re missing, William. Any coup (an unconstitutional takeover) is reliant on all of those patriots who swear oaths and allegiance going along with something illegal. You’d need their support of such a manoeuvre in advance, before trying something like that.

 

Nevertheless, that was clearly Trump's plan.

And I wouldn't have been surprised if many or all of those people would do what Trump asked them to do, as long as it wasn't illegal.

Some would probably even do illegal things. Just look at all of Trump's associates who did do illegal things for Trump.

 

[W. Niederhut]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nevertheless, that was clearly Trump's plan.

And I wouldn't have been surprised if many or all of those people would do what Trump asked them to do, as long as it wasn't illegal.

Some would probably even do illegal things. Just look at all of Trump's associates who did do illegal things for Trump.

 

Chris Miller at the Pentagon is a good example of a flying monkey appointed by Trump (to replace Mark Esper) after Trump lost the election.

And, although Miller has been evasive on the subject, it looks like he played a role in blocking the deployment of the National Guard to defend the Capitol on January 6th.

Trump also tried to appoint a flying monkey as Attorney General (to replace Barr) who would cooperate with his plan to overturn the election.

Also, his flying monkeys at the FBI (Wray) and DHS (Wolf) may have helped suppress intelligence about the impending attack on the Capitol.

Historical facts for Chris B. to contemplate.

Edited June 12, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Trump also tried to appoint a flying monkey as Attorney General (to replace Barr) who would cooperate with his plan to overturn the election.

Wasn't Barr one of your "flying monkey's" as you call them before he turned on Trump? This illustrates your bias again, you are prepared to go with anyone that suits your opinion (media or individual). That isn't an objective way to approach things. 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nevertheless, that was clearly Trump's plan.

And I wouldn't have been surprised if many or all of those people would do what Trump asked them to do, as long as it wasn't illegal.

Some would probably even do illegal things. Just look at all of Trump's associates who did do illegal things for Trump.

 

One thing that I believe William and others are overlooking is; the psychology of Trump. He is a guy who prides himself on winning and his whole reputation is based on him being a winner. What do we know about these sorts of people? When they lose at sports or in whatever domain, they always claim the result was unjust or stolen from them, they never accept it and its more important to them that their supporters believe that, so they save face and maintain pride/status. So, Trump was always going to be a sore loser and make it seem like the result was unjust. There is a world of difference between that and orchestrating a coup d'etat involving all of the agencies that were against him. I haven't heard one sound argument that addresses this central question around how he was to get these incredibly powerful agencies on board.

Let me make another point; if these agencies were on board (pro Trump, pro coup), then we know the capabilities they have in the media, psychological operations and infrastructure. They had every chance of keeping Trump in power without a coup, by subverting the election process and shaping the minds of the public. It's clear that these agencies were not supporting Trump. The FBI had him up twice in 4 years. The Pentagon were irked by his foreign policy stances. The CIA are experts at swinging elections and subverting democracies all over the globe. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

Trump's plan didn't consist of only the riot at the capitol. There were a number of other measures his team discussed and took in order to thwart the transfer of power to Biden.

Had they succeeded, who knows what kind of protests or riots would have resulted. If I were a younger, stronger man, I certainly would have been angry as hell and would have been out protesting. I'm certain there would have been mass protests throughout the country. The trumpsters may have likewise gone out and had mass protests against us. Who knows how this would have ended up. It may have lead to civil war for all we know. And remember, Trump would have still been in control of the armed forces. I suspect they would have revolted against Trump, but who knows.

There have been reports that GOP-controlled state legislatures have been busy making laws that would allow them more control over the local electoral system so that they can control what can be done in response to future fake-disputed counts.

What Trump did is serious business and measures should be taken to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. And Trump and his ilk should be prosecuted and imprisoned for their coup attempt.

 

I have an interesting question. We have a knowledgable audience on the forum. How many coups have happened abroad using the same method that some here are claiming Trump used? What conditions were required to make them a success? 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 It was a fantasy, but real nonetheless. It was an attempted coup that we all could see coming. It wasn’t effective, nor was the follow on cooperation of unelected leadership secured. It’s not clear what would have happened had Pence gone along. But Trump was then and still is now claiming the election was stolen, and he is planning the next go around. What would it take for you to see Trump as a traitor? Is the bar not high enough? 

A have a few points here; 

- If you were planning a coup, it carries very serious consequences, just like a JFKA. 
- If you are to attempt one, you would want to be absolutely sure that you'd get away with it, its very high risk. 
- The alleged plan comes across like something teenagers would come up with. Yet Trump, Bannon etc have used plenty of sophistry in getting into office etc. It doesn't fit the MO. 

I actually think Trump is a traitor, or charlatan to his voters, Paul. That's a separate thing entirely to him planning a very high risk, deeply flawed coup, where he had no chance of the acquiescence of these powerful agencies that were against him. What isn't on trial is Trump's integrity, morality, character etc, it's whether he planned a coup. Some here need to separate those things. I do understand what people are emotional and why this topic is close to peoples hearts. 

If Trump is found guilty, then you'll need to also try those in all of these agencies I have spoken of and the underlings who were also complicit. Trump would sing like a canary. Can you see that happening? This whole argument has to be underpinned by logic. It can't be a hunch, speculation, or a plans that seem entirely implausible. 

Trumps lack of acceptance of losing the election is being used as a motive. As I said to Sandy, this behaviour of all sore losers, they lose status by accepting defeat and its the very reason that some on the forum never accept they are wrong, they just go quiet or ignore. Trumps reputation was built on being a winner, he was never going to accept it. That's different from planning a coup to keep power. 

[W. Niederhut]

27 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Wasn't Barr one of your "flying monkey's" as you call them before he turned on Trump? This illustrates your bias again, you are prepared to go with anyone that suits your opinion (media or individual). That isn't an objective way to approach things. 

Indeed he was.  Barr shut down, redacted, and lied about Mueller's Russiagate investigation for Trump.  But even Barr balked at helping Trump overturn the 2020 election.

Trump, then, sought someone as AG who would cooperate with his coup plot.  Some of that evidence was presented in Thursday's Congressional hearing.

If I can give you a little general, intellectual advice, you need to learn how to formulate theories based on the actual facts, rather than beginning with theories and ignoring or trying to adapt the facts to fit your theories.

It's a pattern with you-- a cognitive style, if you will.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

43 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Wasn't Barr one of your "flying monkey's" as you call them before he turned on Trump? This illustrates your bias again, you are prepared to go with anyone that suits your opinion (media or individual). That isn't an objective way to approach things. 

 

Chris,

Trump appointed Barr so that he would write a whitewashed summary of the Mueller Report. Barr was willing to do that. But Barr wasn't willing to go along with Trump's coup plot. That's the reason he quit in the last month of Trump's presidency. He testified in the January 6 Hearings that he told Trump that his voter fraud claims were "bullshit."

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Indeed he was.  Barr shut down, redacted, and lied about Mueller's Russiagate investigation for Trump.  But even Barr balked at helping Trump overturn the 2020 election.

Trump, then, sought someone as AG who would cooperate with his coup plot.  Some of that evidence was presented in Thursday's Congressional hearing

How can Barr them be credible? Did the leopard change its spots? 

 

 

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

If I can give you a little general, intellectual advice, you need to learn how to formulate theories based on the actual facts, rather than beginning with theories and ignoring or trying to adapt the facts to fit your theories.

It's a pattern with you-- a cognitive style, if you will.

Thank you. Since we're sharing advice this evening, I will send a little your way. 

- You ignore everything that your theories don't support. That's a lack of intellectual pedigree. If there are gaps in the logic or opinion you have formulated, its a problem. 
- Try avoiding using the word "fact" when you mean to use opinion (in general). That's a common mistake of yours. I am certain it comes from being immersed in the MSM, that you sometimes think is corrupted. 
- In also think that your disposition is unfortunate. You earn your corn in a psychiatry role but, you are unable to implement the use of psychology or critical thinking when it's any topic that's liked to your emotions, William. Of course the condition is easily explained, by a range of esteemed psychologists and authors. 
- Are you aware that some people have better problem solving and critical thinking faculties that others? Do you think that might not be one of your strong areas? We all have strengths and weaknesses right? After all, it was yourself who was convinced of the JFKA conspiracy by a psychiatric patient of yours. I am certain you are excellent at some things, I just suspect this isn't one of them. I mean no disrespect. I have areas where I struggle, where I am sure you'd flourish. 
- I have two good friends who are psychoanalysts and another who is a psychologist, we have the most fantastic conversations, some of it is about conspiracies. One thing I expect from you in conversation is the use of psychology and analysis concerning such topics. It's almost completely absent in your dialogue. Myself and others find this most curious, as it should be your forte, your specialist area.