Whatever op happened it didn’t in Germany.

Gn

Very true. Chinook's go down, stories get mangled and covered up. So plausible.

my point is how do u know that, the operators dont even know whats going on lol

@Ghostdog, you just advanced to level 7!

lvl up lol

i hope everyone is stocked up on ur bullets, beans, and band aids.. 2021 will be wild lol

may u live in interesting times 🤓

The new of Hunter Biden links to China and the 10% payoff to 'the big one' implies that our potential next commander in chief is a Chinese agent.

I think 2021 will be worse than 2020 if that’s possible

Delta Force Siezes Lost Dutchman's Gold From Kremlin In Black Op

Sorry for this but the last episode was really really dumb. The texas suit will go nowhere its garbage, if anything its a coup attempt, soft, but still a coup attempt.

Blasphemy. This is the one.



(just like the last one)

Pick one:

1. Committing election fraud is a coup attempt
2. Going through the constitutional process to challenge an election is a coup attempt

There are lots of ways to attempt a coup, I reckon.

I would say going through the constitutional process of challenging the election is not a coup attempt. Anyone pushing this is sensationalizing.

You can attempt a coup via either of those methods. It is more likely your intent to change the course of an election via voter fraud, but it is also possible by legally challenging the results of an election (this depends on whether or not the Constitution and laws are followed).

The alternative is one side could commit fraud and if the other side tried to hint there was fraud, the fraudulent side could just say “coup attempt! Sedition! Treason!”

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire, you just advanced to level 11!

I would say abusing the constitutional process to push a narrative is at least disgusting...and could also be a coup attempt.

My point is that following the legal process is not a coup attempt.

My point is people say a lot of things.

I agree with @AdvanceManExtraordinaire . I think that we should hear the accusations of fraud in court and either debunk them or prove them. This means actually having a court hearing where people get a fair shake (i.e. the judge looks at the evidence makes a judgment).

This also means that the decision cannot be predetermined or be just a show.

Yeah, and let’s be honest, you need a judge that’s willing to look at the facts and consider the law. Not one who is going to say “it’s not the role of the court to overturn the will of the people”.

Actually it is

Well, the court wouldn't be overturning the will of the people if the illegal votes are removed and the results change or the election in a state has to be thrown out because there was too much fraud to say the election results are accurate when there is no way to remove fraudulent votes.

Though I do understand that the courts are supposed to make sure that the laws are followed and prevent mob rule or even just majority rule (i.e. we are a democratic republic).

it is not a coup d'état by any definition

I think we can all agree that winning an election is not a coup attempt.

neither is going to court to contest it

"a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force." it is not illegal, by definition since they are going through the courts, and it is not by force either. unless speaking is force

If we are using coup to mean military take over rather than illegally gaining power, then yes.

@AquaCat, you just advanced to level 1!

Yeah but that's not the only kind.

By that definition, the DNC is objectively attempting a coup 😂

States broke their laws to choose which electors to send

another definition "sudden defeat of a government through illegal force by a small group, often a military one" oxford dictionary. this doesnt apply either

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire well that remains to be decided. if they didn't comply with the courts decision then you could say it was illegal, i.e. prohibited by the law

I think what’s not in question is that several state executives changed their election rules against their constitution. Is that not correct?

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire yes that is the accusation. but the courts question is whether that is illegal according to the constitution. at least several states believe that it is.

I’m trying to understand the argument that going against what is stated in the constitution can be constitutional, other than “not willing to overturn the will of the people”.