How long will Trumpism last? (1 Viewer)

[Along Came Jones]

It helps them avoid simple truth. But this guy is off. He even misused his own source, Charles T. Call (not a historian, I think he may have been a political scientist), merely argued that their are different looks to a coup. A "self-coup" (ridiculous argument) is a coup.

But for somebody who claims to not be a Trump supporter, this guy sure is desperate to pretend that it was just a simple "violent disruption of Congress." He wants to lighten the event. He clearly was a Trump supporter and probably voted for him twice. But after Jan 6, which was just a "violent disruption," he has decided not to vote for "neither Biden or Trump." He places Biden first and foremost, not Trump, the Republican who was scheming up a coup since November, with Staff accomplices, some State officials, and a handful of citizen fake electors. Trump even tried to stack the Pentagon in the months prior to the election! No, this a former blind Trump supporter who continues to pander to the right-wing training of hating a Democrat. But, meh, I could be way off.

That source distinguished the concept of a self-coup from a coup. In simpler words, had you read the link he mostly agrees with you. I don't.

My understanding of a coup is derived from Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, first published in 1968, is a book by Edward Luttwak examining the conditions, strategy, planning, and execution of coups d'état. A revised edition of the book, with references to twenty-first century technology, was published in 2016. It has been published in 27 foreign languages, including, most recently, Thai and Hungarian. And in this exchange, I agree with Luttwak's Jan 7, 2020 Wall Street Journal commentary, The Mob on the Hill Was Far From a Coup.

I'd lend you my copy, but it would not be practical. You might try a lending library or purchase it here.

I take note that you practice that super magical power of internet clairvoyance. I don't think it is working all that well for you, one military retiree to another.

 

[Hello My Son]

Other: Until the Democratic Party becomes primarily a moderate/center-left party with moderate/center-left leaders/positions again and discontinues the intersectionality politics. Until that point, there's a massive amount of people who neither care nor are impacted by intersectionality policies and are not going to be motivated to vote based on them, because it has nothing to do with their personal interests.

Doesn't mean that those policies cannot remain part of the platform--they just have to hold more policy positions that cater to the political center, independents, and non-uber far-left subgroups.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

That source distinguished the concept of a self-coup from a coup. In simpler words, had you read the link he mostly agrees with you. I don't.

My understanding of a coup is derived from Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, first published in 1968, is a book by Edward Luttwak examining the conditions, strategy, planning, and execution of coups d'état. A revised edition of the book, with references to twenty-first century technology, was published in 2016. It has been published in 27 foreign languages, including, most recently, Thai and Hungarian. And in this exchange, I agree with Luttwak's Jan 7, 2020 Wall Street Journal commentary, The Mob on the Hill Was Far From a Coup.

I'd lend you my copy, but it would not be practical. You might try a lending library or purchase it here.

I take note that you practice that super magical power of internet clairvoyance. I don't think it is working all that well for you, one military retiree to another.

It's semantics. You want to pass yourself off as scholarly, knock yourself out. It's still semantics. Then you reference WSJ but not as a scholarly site but as ............
OPINION COMMENTARY
I mean it's right there on the front page.
So NOW we have your OPINION and you have ours. Why don't you keep trying to convince us for the next several pages of how much wiser you are than us mere mortals. Use more semantics. Impress us.

 

[Along Came Jones]

It's semantics. You want to pass yourself off as scholarly, knock yourself out. It's still semantics. Then you reference WSJ but not as a scholarly site but as ............
OPINION COMMENTARY
I mean it's right there on the front page.
So NOW we have your OPINION and you have ours. Why don't you keep trying to convince us for the next several pages of how much wiser you are than us mere mortals. Use more semantics. Impress us.

View attachment 67501693

Thank you. Properly noted and filed.

 

[Hello My Son]

That source distinguished the concept of a self-coup from a coup. In simpler words, had you read the link he mostly agrees with you. I don't.

My understanding of a coup is derived from Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, first published in 1968, is a book by Edward Luttwak examining the conditions, strategy, planning, and execution of coups d'état. A revised edition of the book, with references to twenty-first century technology, was published in 2016. It has been published in 27 foreign languages, including, most recently, Thai and Hungarian. And in this exchange, I agree with Luttwak's Jan 7, 2020 Wall Street Journal commentary, The Mob on the Hill Was Far From a Coup.

I'd lend you my copy, but it would not be practical. You might try a lending library or purchase it here.

I take note that you practice that super magical power of internet clairvoyance. I don't think it is working all that well for you, one military retiree to another.

Rather than engaging in the seemingly never-ending debate about whether or not it was a coup, the far-more relevant discussion is whether or not it ever stood a realistic chance to overturn the government, which is a resounding and laughable, "Of course not, so the semantical argument is silly and moot "

This is why nobody who is firmly in the "it was a coup" camp ever makes any argument asserting that the government was actually under any real threat of being taken out. Even they know it would be a completely insane thing to say, so they avoid it altogether while convulsing hysterically about the fact that a bunch of tailgaters got shitfaced and turned violent/destructive because they stupidly believed they could overturn the election results and stop the transition of power while they were half in the bag.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Rather than engaging in the seemingly never-ending debate about whether or not it was a coup, the far-more relevant discussion is whether or not it ever stood a realistic chance to overturn the government, which is a resounding and laughable, "Of course not, so the semantical argument is silly and moot "

This is why nobody who is firmly in the "it was a coup" camp ever makes any argument asserting that the government was actually under any real threat of being taken out. Even they know it would be a completely insane thing to say, so they avoid it altogether while convulsing hysterically about the fact that a bunch of tailgaters got shitfaced and turned violent/destructive because they stupidly believed they could overturn the election results and stop the transition of power while they were half in the bag.

So it's OK to conspire to rob a bank if the plan is bad and probably won't work?

 

[Hello My Son]

So it's OK to conspire to rob a bank if the plan is bad and probably won't work?

No. Why would you think that? What a silly thing to post!

 

[NolanVoyd]

So it's OK to conspire to rob a bank if the plan is bad and probably won't work?

"the far-more relevant discussion is whether or not it ever stood a realistic chance to overturn the government, which is a resounding and laughable, "Of course not, so the semantical argument is silly and moot "

That was you right?

 

[Hello My Son]

"the far-more relevant discussion is whether or not it ever stood a realistic chance to overturn the government, which is a resounding and laughable, "Of course not, so the semantical argument is silly and moot "

That was you right?

Yep. Now that we have that established, go ahead and highlight the part where I said that it was "OK to conspire to rob a bank if the plan is bad and probably won't work?"

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yep. Now that we have that established, go ahead and highlight the part where I said that it was "OK to conspire to rob a bank if the plan is bad and probably won't work?"

Same thing.

You are making excuses for that part of the attempted coup because it wasn't likely to work.

How is it you don't understand your own words.

 

[Hello My Son]

Same thing.

You are making excuses for that part of the attempted coup because it wasn't likely to work.

How is it you don't understand your own words.

As much as you desperately and emotionally want it to be the same thing, no, it's definitely not.

Saying, "A bunch of drunk idiots trying to stage a coup never posed a real threat to overturning the election and taking over the government" and "The bunch of drunk idiots who tried to overturn the election and take over the government shouldn't be held criminally liable for their crimes" are not one and the same. I said the first, but definitely not the second. If you really think they are the same thing, I suggest you go back and complete some basic vocabulary and grammar courses and then report back to me.

You're desperately trying to avoid acknowledging that the first factual statement above is true.

"This is why nobody who is firmly in the "it was a coup" camp ever makes any argument asserting that the government was actually under any real threat of being taken out. Even they know it would be a completely insane thing to say, so they avoid it altogether while convulsing hysterically about the fact that a bunch of tailgaters got shitfaced and turned violent/destructive because they stupidly believed they could overturn the election results and stop the transition of power while they were half in the bag."

Should I get some points for accurately predicting your exact behavior or what?!

Also, as an aside since you seem to not understand the law and have difficulty with terminological definitions, two people talking about robbing a bank would not be a conspiratorial crime merely because they talked about it. One of them would have to take an action toward putting the plan into motion (i.e. hiring a getaway driver, buying burglary tools or weapons, or some other definitive action that could be considered an advancement toward implementing the plan). Simply talking about a plan to do it without taking further action is not a crime. If it was, everyone who ever joked about robbing a bank or committing any other crime could be charged and thrown in prison.

That should definitively end it here. You obviously want to avoid certain inconvenient facts so you don't have to admit them out loud, and you avoid them by posting strawman arguments so you can provoke predetermined arguments you want to have about things I didn't say. I suggest you start a blog or diary if you want to argue against hypothetical arguments instead of trying to manipulate me into having them with you. That's simply a boring schtick and offers no intellectual benefits, IMO. Have a great day!!

 

[NolanVoyd]

As much as you desperately and emotionally want it to be the same thing, no, it's definitely not.

Yes, the analogy works.

Your excuse for that part of the attempted coup is that it wasn't likely to work.

 

[switt]

It's like asking "How long will racism, populism, nativism, anti-science, conspiracy theorism and anti-democracy last?" Trumpism may go away in time, but the elements that define it will be around forever.

Trumpism is the bringing of them all together. The fading of trumpism is their separation back to their camps. I believe this will happen when he loses, again.

 

[Hello My Son]

Yes, the analogy works.

Your excuse for that part of the attempted coup is that it wasn't likely to work.

Imaginary bullshit-artistry strawman stupidity aside, "This is why nobody who is firmly in the "it was a coup" camp ever makes any argument asserting that the government was actually under any real threat of being taken out. Even they know it would be a completely insane thing to say, so they avoid it altogether while convulsing hysterically about the fact that a bunch of tailgaters got shitfaced and turned violent/destructive because they stupidly believed they could overturn the election results and stop the transition of power while they were half in the bag."

Thanks for playing. Move on and use your schtick of posting dishonest and pathetic fake arguments with someone who gives a shit. Or.....just get a diary since you're obviously using junior high tactics to get your irrational feelings out.

 

[jpevans]

OH LORD. Ok, for the last time. Though by now I would have thought ANYONE would have understood. But since you didn't, I'll try once more and then you are on your own:
Trumpism: mindless minions so monumentally stupid they literally worship Trump far beyond any hero worship for another presidential candidate, to the point of being in a cult, and so monumentally insecure that any criticism of said Trump throws his minions into fits and turns their feelings into bowls of jelly far worse than what happens when other candidates are criticized. FAR WORSE.

Trumpism can be abreviated MAGA.

Trumpism will last as long as enough people can continue winning elections by being Trumpy.

But they’re not winning too often. Mostly losers…

 

[NolanVoyd]

Imaginary

your own words.

"This is why nobody who is firmly in the "it was a coup" camp ever makes any argument asserting that the government was actually under any real threat of being taken out.

Those words.

that is the part where you are making excuses for that part of the artempted coup, the attack on the capitol, because it wasnt likely to work.

just like i said.

Where is your patriotism?

Even they know it would be a completely insane thing to say, so they avoid it altogether while convulsing hysterically about the fact that a bunch of tailgaters got shitfaced and turned violent/destructive because they stupidly believed they could overturn the election results and stop the transition of power while they were half in the bag."

yep. Those words.

you wrote that and then call me dishonest.

Its amazing

 

[PoS]

If it's so clear explain it.

I already did. Read my previous replies.

 

[Scooter]

Watch "The Preamble of The Constitution Schoolhouse Rock" on YouTube (3:00)

 

[forn]

I don't know what you mean by "Trumpism". If you mean the personality cult he has attracted, it will probably fade once he gets another term as president (if he does) or is too old to serve (I'd argue that time has already come and gone). If you mean the way he has fundamentally transformed the Republican party (in a good way) from corporate advocators to a populist party of the middle class, that is likely to stay for a very long time. People do not want to go back to the "old" Republican party of war hawks and tax cuts (although they/we still want tax cuts).

 

[Scooter]

Yes, the analogy works.

Your excuse for that part of the attempted coup is that it wasn't likely to work.

Pardon the intrusion, but who launches a coup detat without firearms of any kind?

 

[NolanVoyd]

I already did. Read my previous replies.

No, actually you didn't.

I asked you refused.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Pardon the intrusion, but who launches a coup detat without firearms of any kind?

Two things.

First. Lots of people.

It was an attempted auto coup.

A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

Where did you get the idea that it needed to be military?

Secondly, there were guns.

Taking the stand in the seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates, Terry Cummings showed jurors an AR-15 firearm and an orange box for ammunition that he contributed to the so-called quick reaction force the Oath Keepers had staged at the hotel outside of Washington in case they needed weapons.

“I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” said Cummings, a veteran who joined the Oath Keepers in Florida in 2020.

Oath Keepers jury hears about massive weapon cache on Jan. 6

A member of the Oath Keepers who traveled to Washington before the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol testified Wednesday about a massive cache of weapons the far-right extremist group stashed in a Virginia hotel room.

apnews.com

 

[PoS]

No, actually you didn't.

I asked you refused.

Yes, I did, You just didnt get it is all... which is normal for you.

 

[Perotista]

This is not a poll about whether you love Trump like he is your Savior or whether you hate Trump with passion.

Americans are stuck with Trumpism. Should he win the next election, it will be with you all for another decade (my guess). If he loses, it may fade by the next election cycle. Or not. Depending if Trump takes the loss poorly and decides to try his luck again in 2028.

Being stuck with Trumpism, there is a belief that "this too shall pass." Just like McCarthyism passed. Like Reaganism passed. Ok, just like Obamaism has passed (despite the comics on here who believe it is Obama running the White House, not Biden).

It has to pass eventually, though some might say it won't. That Trumpism will survive Trump and become a movement.

I have my guess. Trumpism will diminish only after Trump has passed away. Even detoothed, and aging out in Mar something or other, as long as he is breathing, there will be Trumpism. BUT, that is just my guess.

I am interested in YOUR guess.

I heard many time, spoken by Trump supporters that Trumpism is a form of populism. I’d say Trumpism is more a form of anti-populism which is basically confined to the Republican Party with a few independents joining their ranks. It’s not the form of populism where the people have some form of control over the government or in this case, the decision-making process of the Republican Party. It’s a brand anti-populism where Trump has full control of the Republican Party and makes all the decisions. This brand of anti-populism or Trumpism isn’t one of a political ideology as the 7-time party switcher Trump doesn’t have one. He’s always adopted the political philosophy of the party he belonged to at the time.

It borders on hero or idol worship. How long will it last, as long as Trump is still around to exert his control. Where Trumpism is in full control of the GOP, anti-Trumpism or as some call it, TDS has invaded the Democratic Party. Where it seems to be all consuming. Which leave a huge chunk of Americans wondering what the heck is going on with our two major parties being obsessed or taken over with Trumpism in one case and anti-Trumpism/TDS in the other. Which is natural and fully expected as it is the job and duty of each major party to oppose each other. Especially in today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide, the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship. I think it’s time to leave this modern era and return to a previous era where compromise and playing the game of give and take was possible. Where the two major parties could work together. But as long as Trumpism and anti-Trumpism exists, that is impossible.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yes, I did, You just didnt get it is all... which is normal for you.

Which post?