Many here told you so

We can now draw a line under the crime and whether or not it happened - it did. Trump was correct.
Trump's campaign was illegally spied on by The Obama adminstration.

Now we just need those involved - both in terms of the people who carried out the crime and those who ordered it or conspired - to be put on trial.

This is now a proven coup attempt. It has to be dealt with severely.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: seagull

I insist in seeing the truth. Sorry you dont agree.

Oh it was proven. They all admitted it. Only they said well it aint so bad... but it was and everybody knows what he did.

This is your brain on drugs, kids. Drugs are bad; unless they're antipsychotics, inwhich you should take them and not make ridiculous posts like the one above.

a reply to: Xtrozero
The line is at replacing the entire government.

Anything less than that isn't a coup d'état.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xtrozero
The line is at replacing the entire government.

Anything less than that isn't a coup d'état.

That's not true. In fact, the new leaders often utilize radical elements of the old government in order to effect the coup. The entire old government is rarely replaced. You might want to read some history.

a reply to: face23785
What do you mean by elements?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785
What do you mean by elements?

Other parts of the government, for example members of the cabinet. In countries with systems different than ours, members of the coalition are part of the government, and in some countries the military is part of the government. It can happen a lot of ways, but the claim that a coup requires the entire old government be replaced is simply not true.

a reply to: face23785
By government I mean the system.

By your definition, every presidential election in the US is a coup, with some elements remaining in place.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785
By government I mean the system.

By your definition, every presidential election in the US is a coup, with some elements remaining in place.

Not every coup changes the system of government, and nothing I claimed means every presidential election is a coup. You're demonstrating some serious lack of understanding on this issue. You might want to start by looking up what a coup actually is instead of inventing your own definition for something that already has one.

a reply to: face23785

I did look it up. That is why I am posting what I'm posting.

Sure, not all coups are the same and some will have elements cross over, they are usually the ones behind them.

It still does not make the use of the term for the attacks on Trump a true to definition coup.

The system can be completely changed in some and in some only a large portion of elements are changed. But, in a system of checks and balances, these "attacks" are part of the original system, even if poorly grounded.

Like CynConcepts, good thing the US has that type of system. The political twist in the use of this term is what I'm trying pointing out.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785

I did look it up. That is why I am posting what I'm posting.

Sure, not all coups are the same and some will have elements cross over, they are usually the ones behind them.

It still does not make the use of the term for the attacks on Trump a true to definition coup.

The system can be completely changed in some and in some only a large portion of elements are changed. But, in a system of checks and balances, these "attacks" are part of the original system, even if poorly grounded.

Like CynConcepts, good thing the US has that type of system. The political twist in the use of this term is what I'm trying pointing out.

I wasn't arguing whether this was a coup attempt or not, simply pointed out that your characterization that a coup must result in the entire government changing is factually inaccurate.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785

I did look it up. That is why I am posting what I'm posting.

Sure, not all coups are the same and some will have elements cross over, they are usually the ones behind them.

It still does not make the use of the term for the attacks on Trump a true to definition coup.

The system can be completely changed in some and in some only a large portion of elements are changed. But, in a system of checks and balances, these "attacks" are part of the original system, even if poorly grounded.

Like CynConcepts, good thing the US has that type of system. The political twist in the use of this term is what I'm trying pointing out.

I wasn't arguing whether this was a coup attempt or not, simply pointed out that your characterization that a coup must result in the entire government changing is factually inaccurate.

First of all the left argued that no spying took place.
When it was proven it did, they now argue it was not that big a deal.
It's their nature to lie, deflect and cover up the seriousness of their crimes, whilst at the same time pointing fingers at others.

originally posted by: daskakik

The line is at replacing the entire government.

Anything less than that isn't a coup d'état.

Ok you win by your personal definition, who cares.... This was a START of a coup that failed... I think a couple of people suggested that already.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: daskakik

The line is at replacing the entire government.

Anything less than that isn't a coup d'état.

Ok you win by your personal definition, who cares.... This was a START of a coup that failed... I think a couple of people suggested that already.

Anybody can "win" by inventing new definitions that fit their claims. His definition isn't the actual definition of a coup though.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785

I did look it up. That is why I am posting what I'm posting.

Sure, not all coups are the same and some will have elements cross over, they are usually the ones behind them.

It still does not make the use of the term for the attacks on Trump a true to definition coup.

The system can be completely changed in some and in some only a large portion of elements are changed. But, in a system of checks and balances, these "attacks" are part of the original system, even if poorly grounded.

Like CynConcepts, good thing the US has that type of system. The political twist in the use of this term is what I'm trying pointing out.

I wasn't arguing whether this was a coup attempt or not, simply pointed out that your characterization that a coup must result in the entire government changing is factually inaccurate.

First of all the left argued that no spying took place.
When it was proven it did, they now argue it was not that big a deal.
It's their nature to lie, deflect and cover up the seriousness of their crimes, whilst at the same time pointing fingers at others.

I won't argue with any of that.

a reply to: face23785
Fair enough. I was simplifying to highlight why this FISA mess doesn't fit the definition.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You can't say it was a start of a coup. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew it wasn't going to go anywhere. Even Pelosi voiced doubts.

a reply to: watchitburn

I'm shocked!
Shocked I say!

Hey!

You stole my lines!

I'm going to assert a copyright claim!

Oh wait, they're in common usage?

Never mind.

Carry on.

a reply to: projectvxn

Many have spent the last three years avoiding or outright denying reality.

No matter what is said or who says it, they will never believe that the President is not a Russian asset, or that he didn't engage in quid pro quo in a corrupt extortion attempt.

I believe that's the quintessential essence of TDS.

I'm not a Trump fan, but these people are truly out of their minds.

There's no talking to them either.

Thank God for small mercies, I guess.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why is this being soft pedaled as being an unusual aberration of behavior within top level FBI officials? Just because the Marines did not open fire does not mean a coup attempt did not occur.

As a former Marine, I can tell you that if there was ever any real danger, there would have been a whole lot of blood on the walls.

Truly.

We protect our Commander-in-Chief.

No matter what.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: projectvxn

Many have spent the last three years avoiding or outright denying reality.

No matter what is said or who says it, they will never believe that the President is not a Russian asset, or that he didn't engage in quid pro quo in a corrupt extortion attempt.

I'm not a Trump fan, but these people are truly out of their minds.

There's no talking to them either.

And this is why Trump is gonna win in November. Even people that don't particularly care for him can see his opponents have gone stark-raving mad.