It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785
What do you mean by elements?
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: daskakik
The line is at replacing the entire government.
Anything less than that isn't a coup d'état.
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.
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'm shocked!
Shocked I say!
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.
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.
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.