Clearly Democrats Don't Want A Smooth Transition Of Power....They Want A Political Coup Before It's Too Late

[L.K.Eder]

He must be stopped before he attempts another coup.

You could call what Trump was up to a coup -------- not leaving when the office term is up is one of history's commonest forms of coup d'etat.

You could also call stealing an election by the Dems a coup, if you believe they did: stealing votes is another very popular form of coup. Napoleon had a vote on his new constitution that he wrote himself. They told him, Your Majesty, you've won by a hundred thousand votes! He said, Ehhhhhhh.....better make it two hundred thousand. So they did.

Anyway, the word coup means changing the basis of sovereignty, like from a king to a congress. I think someone overstaying his term could fairly be called a coup.

Disagree. The election was not stolen from Trump, nearly 84 million of us voted him out.

When you someday, find out the actual truth, that trump lost and it is trump with you all's blessing, that is trying to steal the election from us, will you apologize, repent, feel sorry for the scam you participated in???

Trump got 86 million and Biden 68 according to sources the MSM ignores

trump got only one vote, and biden got 154 billion votes according to sources the MSM ignores.

 

[SavannahMann]

Are you so far out of your mind that this actually make sense to you? Seriously? Trump tweeted Stop the Steal and other things. His inspired minions attacked Congress and intended to do what? They had plasticuffs and were going to do what? They Damn sure didn’t know.

The idiots were in essence attempting a Coup d’etat. If they had been successful we would have been another third world dictatorship.

The demands on the 25th and Impeachment is the political repercussions from that criminal act.

For years I have said that Trumps biggest liability is Twitter. He proved me right many times. And now he is going into the record books as the worst transition of power in our history. The Clintons held the title. Now it is all Trumps.

Look. Let me explain it this way. You want to play a game. You join the league. You don’t start complying the rules were not fair. You wanted to join them. You have the duty to learn how it is played. Not them to change to your idea of how it should be played.

 

[Crepitus]

The right wing finally engaged in some violence

Finally?

View attachment 441398

In America, far-right terrorist plots have outnumbered far-left ones in 2020

This has been so in most years for the past quarter-century

www.economist.com

Did you realize while you wrote that post that you were not addressing what I actually said? The word engaged should have been your first clue. So, yes, really, you finally have some violence you can pretend to abhor after having to excuse it for so long.

How many people have left wing extremists killed in that last 4 years?

You're trying to move the goal posts. I clearly said violence. That includes assaulting innocent bystanders whether they were killed or not. SMH.

Nope, I'm not.

I asked a question.

Can you answer it?

1. Yes, obviously you are, because I'm talking about violence, you're talking about murder. One is much broader than the other.
2. There is no answer that you would accept, because you define left wing extremists differently than I do.
3. I'm talking about violence. Now, if you want to talk about murder, than two people died in this riot. How many do you claim left wing extremists killed in the last 4 years? To be less than that, you would have to maintain that they killed less than two people. Are you trying to make that case?

So you're saying breaking some windows and burning some trash cans is equivalent to or even worse than opening up on a crowd with a rifle?

Please try to keep up because the rest of the class is way ahead of you. Do you or do you not understand that violence covers a lot more territory than murder?

That's two questions in a row you've refused to answer.

I think your non-answers speak for themselves. You know the comparison you are trying to make isn't really a comparison at all.

 

[Crepitus]

Really , where are the minions of organized armed militia members who he controls that were following his directives for violence force to replace the current government

80 or 90 of them are in jail at the moment. More to follow.

 

[hadit]

The right wing finally engaged in some violence

Finally?

View attachment 441398

In America, far-right terrorist plots have outnumbered far-left ones in 2020

This has been so in most years for the past quarter-century

www.economist.com

Did you realize while you wrote that post that you were not addressing what I actually said? The word engaged should have been your first clue. So, yes, really, you finally have some violence you can pretend to abhor after having to excuse it for so long.

How many people have left wing extremists killed in that last 4 years?

You're trying to move the goal posts. I clearly said violence. That includes assaulting innocent bystanders whether they were killed or not. SMH.

Nope, I'm not.

I asked a question.

Can you answer it?

1. Yes, obviously you are, because I'm talking about violence, you're talking about murder. One is much broader than the other.
2. There is no answer that you would accept, because you define left wing extremists differently than I do.
3. I'm talking about violence. Now, if you want to talk about murder, than two people died in this riot. How many do you claim left wing extremists killed in the last 4 years? To be less than that, you would have to maintain that they killed less than two people. Are you trying to make that case?

So you're saying breaking some windows and burning some trash cans is equivalent to or even worse than opening up on a crowd with a rifle?

Please try to keep up because the rest of the class is way ahead of you. Do you or do you not understand that violence covers a lot more territory than murder?

That's two questions in a row you've refused to answer.

I think your non-answers speak for themselves. You know the comparison you are trying to make isn't really a comparison at all.

IOW, you refuse to acknowledge the serious flaws in your questions. I'm explaining why they make no sense in the context. Now, to go back to what I was saying, finally the "right wing" has engaged in some violence that you can complain about. How many people left wing extremists have killed in the last 4 years is not germane to that statement. As I've said, the mere fact that we would not agree on the definition of left wing extremist renders the question moot. Your second question is simply ridiculous and unworthy of an answer at all. The fact that you even ask them show you are not at all interested in what I actually said.

 

[Crepitus]

The right wing finally engaged in some violence

Finally?

View attachment 441398

In America, far-right terrorist plots have outnumbered far-left ones in 2020

This has been so in most years for the past quarter-century

www.economist.com

Did you realize while you wrote that post that you were not addressing what I actually said? The word engaged should have been your first clue. So, yes, really, you finally have some violence you can pretend to abhor after having to excuse it for so long.

How many people have left wing extremists killed in that last 4 years?

You're trying to move the goal posts. I clearly said violence. That includes assaulting innocent bystanders whether they were killed or not. SMH.

Nope, I'm not.

I asked a question.

Can you answer it?

1. Yes, obviously you are, because I'm talking about violence, you're talking about murder. One is much broader than the other.
2. There is no answer that you would accept, because you define left wing extremists differently than I do.
3. I'm talking about violence. Now, if you want to talk about murder, than two people died in this riot. How many do you claim left wing extremists killed in the last 4 years? To be less than that, you would have to maintain that they killed less than two people. Are you trying to make that case?

So you're saying breaking some windows and burning some trash cans is equivalent to or even worse than opening up on a crowd with a rifle?

Please try to keep up because the rest of the class is way ahead of you. Do you or do you not understand that violence covers a lot more territory than murder?

That's two questions in a row you've refused to answer.

I think your non-answers speak for themselves. You know the comparison you are trying to make isn't really a comparison at all.

IOW, you refuse to acknowledge the serious flaws in your questions. I'm explaining why they make no sense in the context. Now, to go back to what I was saying, finally the "right wing" has engaged in some violence that you can complain about. How many people left wing extremists have killed in the last 4 years is not germane to that statement. As I've said, the mere fact that we would not agree on the definition of left wing extremist renders the question moot. Your second question is simply ridiculous and unworthy of an answer at all. The fact that you even ask them show you are not at all interested in what I actually said.

No, you're dodging them because you know if you answered honestly it would blow the bottom out of your arguments.

You have a nice day.

 

[hadit]

The right wing finally engaged in some violence

Finally?

View attachment 441398

In America, far-right terrorist plots have outnumbered far-left ones in 2020

This has been so in most years for the past quarter-century

www.economist.com

Did you realize while you wrote that post that you were not addressing what I actually said? The word engaged should have been your first clue. So, yes, really, you finally have some violence you can pretend to abhor after having to excuse it for so long.

How many people have left wing extremists killed in that last 4 years?

You're trying to move the goal posts. I clearly said violence. That includes assaulting innocent bystanders whether they were killed or not. SMH.

Nope, I'm not.

I asked a question.

Can you answer it?

1. Yes, obviously you are, because I'm talking about violence, you're talking about murder. One is much broader than the other.
2. There is no answer that you would accept, because you define left wing extremists differently than I do.
3. I'm talking about violence. Now, if you want to talk about murder, than two people died in this riot. How many do you claim left wing extremists killed in the last 4 years? To be less than that, you would have to maintain that they killed less than two people. Are you trying to make that case?

So you're saying breaking some windows and burning some trash cans is equivalent to or even worse than opening up on a crowd with a rifle?

Please try to keep up because the rest of the class is way ahead of you. Do you or do you not understand that violence covers a lot more territory than murder?

That's two questions in a row you've refused to answer.

I think your non-answers speak for themselves. You know the comparison you are trying to make isn't really a comparison at all.

IOW, you refuse to acknowledge the serious flaws in your questions. I'm explaining why they make no sense in the context. Now, to go back to what I was saying, finally the "right wing" has engaged in some violence that you can complain about. How many people left wing extremists have killed in the last 4 years is not germane to that statement. As I've said, the mere fact that we would not agree on the definition of left wing extremist renders the question moot. Your second question is simply ridiculous and unworthy of an answer at all. The fact that you even ask them show you are not at all interested in what I actually said.

No, you're dodging them because you know if you answered honestly it would blow the bottom out of your arguments.

You have a nice day.

You can say that all you want, but "gotcha" questions based on false premises aren't part of a valid debate.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Specifically Where Are The Suggestions Or Directives Where Insurrection Objectives Or Lawlessness Was Stated ? "

* Nebulous Figures Of Speech *

80 or 90 of them are in jail at the moment. More to follow.

Will any of those collected as actors violating statutory laws have been an associate of president where by a directive or suggestion to commit violence was issued ?

The president stated that law was law , even during anti-fascist fascists hay days , the supposition did not disappear .

Which specific statutes did president trump direct to be broken or ignored whereby a criminal statute was violated , whence such a trial should precede any presumption for guilty of misdemeanor crime .

A determination of law for civil statutes imply a preponderance of evidence , however criminal statutes expect that an accused by held to a higher standard of guilt to classify infractions as misdemeanor crimes or high crimes , noting that one is not ever found to be technically guilty in a purely civil legal action .

Issue is that the left has been behaving as though civil legal action is equivalent with guilt for misdemeanor or high crimes .

* Figurative Definition For Violence *

A principle of non violence defines violence as illegitimate aggression , while self defense against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression .

A principle of non violence principles obviously requires a definition for , or descriptions for , legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

A proposed principle for a definition or description for illegitimate aggression also introduces a principle of individualism , whereby illegitimate aggression is defined as any action , or supposition for action by tenet or by edict of creed , to deprive an other individual of either self ownership or self determination ; where self ownership includes free roam , free association , progeny ; and , where self determination includes : private property , civil contracts , willful intents .

 

[Crepitus]

" Specifically Where Are The Suggestions Or Directives Where Insurrection Objectives Or Lawlessness Was Stated ? "

* Nebulous Figures Of Speech *

80 or 90 of them are in jail at the moment. More to follow.

Will any of those collected as actors violating statutory laws have been an associate of president where by a directive or suggestion to commit violence was issued ?

The president stated that law was law , even during anti-fascist fascists hay days , the supposition did not disappear .

Which specific statutes did president trump direct to be broken or ignored whereby a criminal statute was violated , whence such a trial should precede any presumption for guilty of misdemeanor crime .

A determination of law for civil statutes imply a preponderance of evidence , however criminal statutes expect that an accused by held to a higher standard of guilt to classify infractions as misdemeanor crimes or high crimes , noting that one is not ever found to be technically guilty in a purely civil legal action .

Issue is that the left has been behaving as though civil legal action is equivalent with guilt for misdemeanor or high crimes .

* Figurative Definition For Violence *

A principle of non violence defines violence as illegitimate aggression , while self defense against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression .

A principle of non violence principles obviously requires a definition for , or descriptions for , legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

A proposed principle for a definition or description for illegitimate aggression also introduces a principle of individualism , whereby illegitimate aggression is defined as any action , or supposition for action by tenet or by edict of creed , to deprive an other individual of either self ownership or self determination ; where self ownership includes free roam , free association , progeny ; and , where self determination includes : private property , civil contracts , willful intents .

Ah, this is like when you guys say he can't be racist because he doesn't say the "N" word.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Idiots On The Half Shell "

* Numb White Digger *

Ah, this is like when you guys say he can't be racist because he doesn't say the "N" word.

For racism to be a valid term means that violence occurs based upon race , and just because someone does not want to associate with another , even based upon race , that is not racism .

 

[HaShev]

I made the mistake in tuning into Fox News this evening....and Democrats are acting like they've lost their motherfuking minds.

They can't even wait 11 days. They want their pound of flesh now.

It's really a disgusting display of horrid behavior.

Impeaching Trump again on Monday is what I believe is going to piss so many people off that the riots Wednesday will look like a picnic in comparison.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to create a national crisis....please continue this reckless course of action.

View attachment 439616

It kind of reminds me of what a criminal would do when they were desperate to cover up their crimes. What's the
hurry Nancy? Well....the hurry is what Trump can do to expose her between now and Jan 21st.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/republicans-challenge-electoral-vote-count-live-updates.html

Pelosi talked to Joint Chiefs chairman about preventing Trump from ordering a nuclear attack ​

​

On Friday Nancy Pelosi revealed in a letter to fellow Democratic lawmakers that she spoke with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about preventing Trump from initiating military actions or a nuclear strike. Somehow “Preventing an Unhinged President From Using the Nuclear Codes” was the fourth bullet.​

​

​

“This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” Pelosi wrote. “The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.”​

​

​

If anyone appears unstable in all of this....Nancy Pelosi does. She called VP Mike Pence yesterday to implore him into using the 25th Amendment ASAP....and he put her on hold.

This disgusting display of hyper-partisanship must not go unpunished.

Do you think all these words/commentaries used in the propaganda to impeach him can be eventually used against the left (coming from their own words admitting they should be removed) in the investigation and any eventual indictments coming from the JOHN DURHAM probe and other pending investigations and abuses of power by Pelosi and the likes. Surely they will try to obstruct those investigations giving even more evidence of crimes and cover up and abuses of power. IT'S like they are setting themselves up by flying to close to the sun.

 

[HaShev]

" Specifically Where Are The Suggestions Or Directives Where Insurrection Objectives Or Lawlessness Was Stated ? "

* Nebulous Figures Of Speech *

80 or 90 of them are in jail at the moment. More to follow.

Will any of those collected as actors violating statutory laws have been an associate of president where by a directive or suggestion to commit violence was issued ?

The president stated that law was law , even during anti-fascist fascists hay days , the supposition did not disappear .

Which specific statutes did president trump direct to be broken or ignored whereby a criminal statute was violated , whence such a trial should precede any presumption for guilty of misdemeanor crime .

A determination of law for civil statutes imply a preponderance of evidence , however criminal statutes expect that an accused by held to a higher standard of guilt to classify infractions as misdemeanor crimes or high crimes , noting that one is not ever found to be technically guilty in a purely civil legal action .

Issue is that the left has been behaving as though civil legal action is equivalent with guilt for misdemeanor or high crimes .

* Figurative Definition For Violence *

A principle of non violence defines violence as illegitimate aggression , while self defense against illegitimate aggression is legitimate aggression .

A principle of non violence principles obviously requires a definition for , or descriptions for , legitimate versus illegitimate aggression .

A proposed principle for a definition or description for illegitimate aggression also introduces a principle of individualism , whereby illegitimate aggression is defined as any action , or supposition for action by tenet or by edict of creed , to deprive an other individual of either self ownership or self determination ; where self ownership includes free roam , free association , progeny ; and , where self determination includes : private property , civil contracts , willful intents .

Ah, this is like when you guys say he can't be racist because he doesn't say the "N" word.

HIS FORMER Black Girl friend says he's not a racist and his Jewish daughter says he's not an anti semite. You however, are race baiting which makes you a racist who thinks little of other races intellect.

 

[mudwhistle]

Are you so far out of your mind that this actually make sense to you? Seriously? Trump tweeted Stop the Steal and other things. His inspired minions attacked Congress and intended to do what? They had plasticuffs and were going to do what? They Damn sure didn’t know.

The idiots were in essence attempting a Coup d’etat. If they had been successful we would have been another third world dictatorship.

The demands on the 25th and Impeachment is the political repercussions from that criminal act.

For years I have said that Trumps biggest liability is Twitter. He proved me right many times. And now he is going into the record books as the worst transition of power in our history. The Clintons held the title. Now it is all Trumps.

Look. Let me explain it this way. You want to play a game. You join the league. You don’t start complying the rules were not fair. You wanted to join them. You have the duty to learn how it is played. Not them to change to your idea of how it should be played.

If we arrested or impeached everyone who has claimed that the election was stolen, right now Hillary, Obama, Al Gore, and every Democrat trying to impeach Trump would stand trial.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" An Extremely Organized Web Of Spiders "

* Cracked Pot Political Activists Pursuing Not In Person Voting To Get People To Vote Against Their Will And Own Best Interests *

If we arrested or impeached everyone who has claimed that the election was stolen, right now Hillary, Obama, Al Gore, and every Democrat trying to impeach Trump would stand trial.

Having raised suspicions by dispatching legal statutes and granted blanket sanction for the same C-Span Video - GA Election Official Announcement January 4th And Repugnant Can Voter Suppression Goad

* Left Wing Wikipedia Gawping Mouth Deceptive Editing *

Project Veritas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Project Veritas is an American far-right[18] activist group founded by James O'Keefe in June 2010.[23] The group uses undercover techniques to reveal supposed liberal bias and corruption,[19] and is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations, left-leaning groups,[31] and debunked conspiracy theories.[35]

Project Veritas

Help us expose corruption!

www.projectveritas.com