According to the filing, around the same time the employee sent those messages, “an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count.” Meanwhile, Trump himself began pushing false claims about the TCF Center.

The accusations are confessions, of course.

Words don't have the power you pretend they do. — NOS4A2

Of course they do, and you know it. Why do you continue defending Trump if words do not have power? Why do you object to the gag order if words do not have power? Why insist on his right to say whatever he wants if his words do not have power?

The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of.

If they do act it is because they perceive an injustice, not words. — NOS4A2

If they perceive an injustice it is based in large part on words, on what they have been told. On Trump telling them:

In the end, they're not coming after me. They're coming after you — and I'm just standing in their way.

and:

The ridiculous and baseless indictment of me by the Biden administration’s weaponized Department of Injustice will go down as among the most horrific abuses of power in the history of our country ... Many people have said that; Democrats have even said it. This vicious persecution is a travesty of justice.

Did Trump incite a riot?
Yes.

Did Trump attemp an self-coup?
No.

The Secret Service just drove him off (against his will) to the White House where the hapless idiot watched from the TV at his followers invading the Capitol mesmerized at what his supporters could do. A President that doesn't control even his Secret Service isn't capable of a self-coup. And likely he never thought of it that way: he blindly thought that the vice-President could make it happen. Or he could get the votes from somewhere.

Would there have been a possibility for a successful self-coup?
Absolutely! But then Trump would had to have the balls to go through with it. He would have needed guys like general Michael Flynn, who would have had the ability (thanks to his background in special forces and being the director of the DIA) to pull it off. The crowds would have been there to support Trump, which would have been important. The institutions of the US would simply have been paralyzed. People wouldn't have understood just what would have happened or that it could happen in the US. And Flynn and the like would have pushed through it understanding that either they prevail or it's very long prison sentences for them, perhaps even capitol punishment otherwise. That's a huge incentive once you are going to do a coup. The self-coup would have been likely bloodless.

Is there a danger of Trump pulling something like that in the future (as President)?
No!

Trump is a great populist orator, but lacks leadership qualities. And seems to think that the politics even at the highest level is still something you can fight in the courts. Because...he has fought in the courts all his life. He simply cannot pull that kind of thing off, just make everything chaotic, which his supporters absolutely love.

Is there a danger of Trump pulling something like that in the future (as President)?
No! — ssu

Trump is the wrecking ball. By delegitimising democratic institutions, causing chaos and shifting what is acceptable he's paving the way for an actual dictator.

He does play with the idea. Apparently he just recently clarified that he wouldn't be a dictator - well maybe for the first day. This is just Trump being Trump, but it's also a normalisation. He won't be called out on it by his base, and that means the next time someone says this, it'll be a little less outrageous.

While I do not think Trump was planned, I do think there are forces, which we might call disaster capitalists, which seek to exploit him, perhaps to the point of an actual "managed democracy" which would perpetuate laissez-faire policies while redirecting popular anger to outsiders.

Trump is the wrecking ball. By delegitimising democratic institutions, causing chaos and shifting what is acceptable he's paving the way for an actual dictator.

He does play with the idea. Apparently he just recently clarified that he wouldn't be a dictator - well maybe for the first day. This is just Trump being Trump, but it's also a normalisation. He won't be called out on it by his base, and that means the next time someone says this, it'll be a little less outrageous.

While I do not think Trump was planned, I do think there are forces, which we might call disaster capitalists, which seek to exploit him, perhaps to the point of an actual "managed democracy" which would perpetuate laissez-faire policies while redirecting popular anger to outsiders. — Echarmion

Never underestimate the lack of leadership qualities that Trump has. Remember: this man is simply not fit to be a President. We've already seen this, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He want's to be a dictator, yet he lacks a lot what is needed to be one. Also Trump is uncontrollable, hence nobody can control him. Yes, it's chaotic, but that simply makes the Presidency ineffective. That's the end result: more Trumpian chaos, more political polarization.

What will likely happen is that: a) The US as the sole Superpower loses even more of it's leadership position, b) US politics will continue to be as toxic as ever.

It's the Argentification of the US politics. You have more chaos, more leaders that are outrageous because so many are disappointed about, well, everything. And everything will become just slightly worse in the end.

Argentinian way to cut government spending: foul language and waving a chain saw.

Words don't have the power you pretend they do.
— NOS4A2

Of course they do, and you know it. Why do you continue defending Trump if words do not have power? — Fooloso4

The judges' words seem to have some power though. Otherwise @NOS4A2 wouldn't be criticising them, would he? It really is a most fatuous argument that has unfortunately undue influence on the hard of thinking. The whole attraction of power is that what one says can and does change the world, and if it were not so no one would bother to speak at all.

The self-coup would have been likely bloodless. — ssu

I take your point that Trump wanted his regime delivered to him like a take out meal but I doubt that such an attempt would have been bloodless.

We will never know what would have happened had Pence done as he was told. Such a bold venture of disenfranchisement would be performed in plain sight rather than lurk in the dank Venezuelan basement that houses the MAGA dream.

I don't see how the Supreme Court could bury this within the hanging Chads that enveloped Bush and Gore.

Of course they do, and you know it. Why do you continue defending Trump if words do not have power? Why do you object to the gag order if words do not have power? Why insist on his right to say whatever he wants if his words do not have power?

The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of.

Words have power because I like defending Trump. Words have power because I object. Words have power because I insist. There is a gap of hot air between the premise and the conclusions. I don’t believe in sorcery so I don’t believe I’m changing the world with my words. The fact of the matter is I use words because I like using words and I like sharing my opinions. I like reading the opinions of others and I like responding to them. Unlike you, I’m not trying to change anything. Again, I don’t believe in sorcery.

Are my words affecting you now? Am I tickling your brain at a distance? I just put the words there. That’s the end of my influence. That’s the extent of my sorcery, the extent to which I’ve changed the world with words. But it’s your eyes running over the text. It’s your faculties making sense of the symbols and providing them with meaning. You are using my words. They are not doing anything to you; you’re doing things to them, and you’re influencing yourself in the process. That’s the way it has always worked, with Trump’s words, the judge’s words, your words, whomever’s words. Not a single one of them has caused or influenced a goddamn thing.

Not a single one of them has caused or influenced a goddamn thing. — NOS4A2

It's a good thing you don't work in advertising.

Are you the type that buys a product when you see an ad for it?

Are you the type that buys a product when you see an ad for it? — NOS4A2

Not all the time, but I'm a sucker for a sale.

I suppose that reveals more about you than the power of the words.

I suppose that reveals more about you — NOS4A2

That my behaviour can be influenced by the words I see and hear? Well, yes. That's just a well-known fact of psychology. Advertising is a science.

It's also why some politicians use slogans like Obama's "Yes we can" and Trump's "Make America Great Again". They serve a psychological purpose in winning over support that a dry explanation of policy wouldn't achieve.

Words have power because I like defending Trump. — NOS4A2

So, if you did not like defending Trump then words would not have power? You are incapable of seeing beyond yourself as he is.

I don’t believe I’m changing the world with my words. — NOS4A2

That much we can agree on. But you are not Trump. Who says something, where and when it is said, and to whom it is said all matter.

A conman relies on the power of words. Don't you know this? Or do you just deny it in an attempt to make the weaker argument stronger?

What do you think is the connection, if any, between words and thoughts? Do you think in words? Does what you think influence what you do?

No, it reveals that you like sales. What you don’t mention is all the sales and all the ads that do not influence you. But that you pick and choose maybe one or two out of the excessive din of the advertising world, and do not run for a products after every billboard you see, reveals that it isn’t as influential as you make it out to be. It’s the same reason you pick and choose articles and quotes, post them at your whim and fancy, while dismissing countless others. And through these countless efforts you cannot point to one person you’ve influenced.



I speak and write in words.

Yes conmen believe in the power of words. Are you a conman, or so easily conned, that you’ll believe the same? When you hear their words are you compelled into some sort of action favoring their expectations? If others are forced to move at the sight and sound of words, what’s your excuse?

What you don’t mention is all the sales and all the ads that do not influence you. — NOS4A2

I’m not claiming that everyone is influenced by everything. I’m claiming that people can be influenced by the things other people say. It’s not sorcery; it’s psychology.

If others are forced to move at the sight and sound of words, what’s your excuse? — NOS4A2

Well this a strawman. Influence and incitement aren’t force.

I speak and write in words. — NOS4A2

The question is the degree to which you think in words. You avoid making the connection.

Yes conmen believe in the power of words. Are you a conman, or so easily conned, that you’ll believe the same? — NOS4A2

What is at issue is not whether I or any other single individual can be conned or believe people can be conned. It is evident that they can. I am on the fence as to whether you have been conned by Trump. Perhaps you are just testing the extent of your ability to argue whether or not you believe what you say.

If others are forced to move at the sight and sound of words, what’s your excuse? — NOS4A2

I make no excuses. It is not the sight and sound of words that move me but their content. Unlike you do (or pretend to do), I do not believe that they are all just empty sights and sounds devoid of meaning or consequence.

Their gag order is censorship. — NOS4A2

The gag order is just words. They don’t censor anything. That would be sorcery. Trump is perfectly able to ignore the gag order and say and post what he wants.

And as gag orders are just words, judges have a First Amendment right to issue them. They’re allowed to say whatever they like - even if they are threatening punishment.

You can criticise any punishment that’s actually issued, but unless and until that happens, there’s nothing for you to object to.

And the same for you paying your taxes.

Did Trump attemp an self-coup?
No.
...

Would there have been a possibility for a successful self-coup?
Absolutely! But then Trump would had to have the balls to go through with it. He would have needed guys like general Michael Flynn, who would have had the ability (thanks to his background in special forces and being the director of the DIA) to pull it off. — ssu

Trump sort of made a tenuous attempt at a self-coup. He pushed Pence to do something illegal, and he wanted to appoint Jeffrey Clark as AG - because Clark was committed to lying about the election in order to get State Legislatures to illegally overturn the election. Pence didn't play along, and he backed down on Clark.

Trump has a history of treating the law as an inconvenience to be worked around (that's what "fixers" are for), rather than rules that must be followed. My guess is that his followers are fine with that, and many feel frustrated when the law stands in the way of doing what they believe is best (e.g. with their views on "closing the border" which includes violating laws regarding asylum).

I don’t think in words. The metaphor is absurd to me. Do you think in words? Well, where are they?



You’re right. But there are people willing to act on all of the above, to abide by someone else’s dictates, up until and including throwing someone in jail because he made certain sounds with his mouth. That’s how censorship works.

Fee speech is a virtuous policy and censorship is a vice. But irresponsible, hateful speech that predictably leads to threats of violence is a vice, even if it is Constitutionally protected. You've ignored this. Either call Trump out for this irresponsible behavior, or defend it.

But there are people willing to act on all of the above, to abide by someone else’s dictates, up until and including throwing someone in jail because he made certain sounds with his mouth. — NOS4A2

And there are people willing to act on Trump's false claims of a stolen election and his suggestion to "fight like hell" against an "illegitimate president".

Glad you finally understand.

Fee speech is a virtuous policy and censorship is a vice. But irresponsible, hateful speech that predictably leads to threats of violence is a vice, even if it is Constitutionally protected. You've ignored this. Either call Trump out for this irresponsible behavior, or defend it.

It usually leads to threats against the speaker. History shows that the censor is immoral and irresponsible in moving to censor speech he doesn’t like. It’s the same story over and over again. His speech will lead to some species of public disorder, like the corruption of the youth, the loss of faith in the one true god, witchcraft, hatred, threats, violence, racism—I promise. Therefor commit violence and persecution against the speaker.



And that’s on them, not Trump. Took you long enough to get there.

It usually leads to threats against the speaker. — NOS4A2

I asked you to specifically discuss the morality Trump's attacks. The mere fact that free speech is a generally good thing doesn't imply all speech is morally acceptable.

I earlier pointed that there's an established correlation between Trump's verbal attacks and threats to the object of his wrath. Trump is surely aware of this because it's been noted in court filings:

"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/

Trump tried to overthrow the fairest election in recent times. On top of being a fraud and laughingstock for decades, prior to barely winning the electoral college against a terrible Democratic candidate, he’s also a traitor to the United States.

Just like to remind everyone of the facts once in a while. Laughing at, and engaging with, members of the Trump cult is fun though.

Christie's epic takedown....

And that’s on them, not Trump. Took you long enough to get there. — NOS4A2

It's on both.

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this in Brandenburg v. Ohio:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

This why the lawsuits against Fox for amplifying lies are important. The lies would be curses uttered in a parking lot without that power.