Originally Posted by detbuch
Your Politico article was a well crafted summation of various selected actions and statements made by Trump which were put together in the slick, slanted, even sometimes false and deceitful way to entice us to suppose that it was all meant as a plan to stage a future coup.
Yes, you must be correct because Fiona Hill is a deep state operative with no national security experience, no knowledge of worldwide governmental history and I am sure her goal in life is to put down Trump.
In the "Communications" paragraph it made the false equivalence of "In the old days, coup plotters would seize the Central Telegraph or Post Office, and later, radio and TV towers" being equivalent to "he discredited the 'mainstream media' that was critical of his actions as the 'enemy of the people'”. Actually, Trump specifically and many times said that "fake news" is the enemy of the people. Which I would agree with. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps for you any fakery that Trump does is tantamount to the destruction of our democracy, but made up phony news is quite all right--at least if it makes Trump look bad. And, as in the entire article, the Politico columnist used manipulative language here as in Trump "recruited or pressured Fox News, Newsmax, OAN and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook into participants in his efforts to sway public opinion in his favor." Really? He recruited them? His criticisms and comments "pressured" them but not NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, et al? No other Presidents have criticized press coverage? And Trump had somehow seized Twitter as "coup plotters" in "the old days" would "seize the Central Telegraph or Post Office, and later, radio and TV towers"? And he wraps that paragraph up with "He used social media and cable news to propagate false self-serving narratives, reinforce messages to provide justification for his actions, and mobilize his supporters." So he didn't use Twitter to get out his messages, opinions, accomplishments, which left-biased media either refused to cover or falsely twisted into malevolent intentions and deeds? No, according to Politico, news outlets which, I suppose, did not paint Trump as orange man bad were "recruited" or "pressured" not to do so. There was no possible way that they expressed what they considered true. Especially if Politico just knew it wasn't, but was "false self-serving narratives."
She explained exactly with examples how coups work.
In the "Judiciary" paragraph he says: Trump stacked federal courts with what he kept calling “his judges.” More pointed, painted, slanted language. He didn't nominate judges to replace those that had retired or died, he "stacked" the courts--just as, I suppose, we could say every other President has done. And selecting a phrase, "his judges" without any context or examination of what Trump actually meant by it adds intriguing innuendo leaving us to suspect nefarious doings. And, oh yeah BTW, he chose justices on the basis that they would side with him on some election dispute. No, it wasn't from a list given to him by a "conservative" society from which he chose. He chose those he somehow culled up from his deep personal knowledge of which judges existed out there who would side with him in an election dispute. Then he wraps that paragraph up with another false equivalence: Erdogan did the same in Turkey, purging the judiciary and installing loyalists who facilitated his rerun of the 2015 election and sentenced political opponents to long prison terms. Trump frequently called for investigations into his opponents and for courts and law enforcement to “lock them all up!"
So Selecting judges from a list given to Trump is the same as Erdogan "purging the judiciary," and, of course, only Trump was calling for investigations (let's not notice what his opponents in Congress and the media were calling for--including locking him up).
In the "Government institutions" paragraph again we must compare Trump to "As in Turkey" he "purged" cabinet members. Apparently, when other Presidents replaced cabinet members they didn't "purge" them. And, of course, we are to believe that other Presidents didn't choose cabinet members on any basis of loyalty. Of course, of course, the other Presidents only chose the "most Qualified" folks. Right. Was Trump more loyalty demanding than other Presidents. Maybe--I don't know. Has a study been made? Oh, oh, that's right . . . we're supposed to be looking at all this stuff as Trump preparing for a future coup.
In "The legislature" paragraph we find that "Trump usurped the Republican Party." Wow. "Usurp--take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force." OK . . . by this point, we might assume that Politico has gone a bit overboard on its choice of words. Well, on the other hand, some (Pete F, cough, cough) might think we could be quite a bit more extreme.
The article tries to frame everything Trump did as preparation for a coup. But, as with most critiques of Trump's motives, the relevant supposed "facts" are mostly circumstantial. And in the worst way. You can build a circumstantial case, but only if the circumstances strongly, predominantly, and consistently point in the direction you're trying to prove. If, instead, they can easily point in other ways, easily be explained in other ways as well, then you really don't have a case. You have a preferred conjecture. That was the biggest problem with the 10 points of possible obstruction listed in the Mueller report. Each point could easily have been seen as something other than obstruction. And very strongly and admittedly so. We will get to see the unredacted report soon.
Pete's contention that this was a true coup not only rests on the very slimmest of evidence, if we can even call it evidence, it is ridiculous to say "We were one Molotov cocktail or automatic weapon away from losing our government." The entire succession of the US government gathers in one room to conduct the electoral vote count, a thousand people entered the Capitol. Just what control was their and why? Nothing about that is extreme and pipe bombs, molotov ccocktails and weapons were found on the terrorists. That is extreme rhetoric made to incite our perspective into the frenzy of Pete's desire to cancel Trump or anyone favorably associated with him. It borders on insane, if not already there.
|