That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.
That “little secret” between Trump and Johnson? Here’s what it could mean.
The “secret” almost certainly involves a plan to install Trump in the White House if he loses the election—but this plan could be even worse than you think.
A potential plan by Republican leaders to steal the 2024 presidential election. The plan involves delaying the certification of election results in key battleground states, potentially decreasing the overall number of electors appointed and allowing Donald Trump to win the presidency through a contingent election, whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College, determines the president.
You're viewing a single thread.
They’ve said it out loud. Heritage foundation guy has been saying we’re in the middle of a bloodless coup, bloodless if the left allows it.
The historian, Heather Cox Richardson, can walk you though the legal channels for an election steal, provided the Speaker of the House is on board. I’m not going to dig to find it again. She’s on YouTube.
This is going to be like Roe, isn’t it? Where people know exactly what’s about to happen then act surprised when it does.
bloodless if the left allows it.
The left should not allow a coup.
I don't think that the military would fall in line with it. There would be grave concerns
The military will do nothing.
You greatly underestimate our men and women in the service...it's alright you probably haven't served or been exposed to many service members, but if you can trust an internet stranger slightly I hope I can put your mind at ease by saying I have 100% faith from the top down in our military up holding the oath we all took.
They don't need the military. The police have already been militarized and have zero issue using violence against the populace as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Also respectfully, as a vet, the military is not homogenous and Trump will absolutely find the people in the military that will listen to him and put them in charge
Overall I think you’re right. But there is a significant problem on the Marines.
You have read meanings into my comment that aren't intended and have presumed I lack a career in military service. The U.S. military is forbidden from enforcing policy on U.S. soil by the Posse Comitatus Act.
The military is not going to do anything about election issues or any other issues unless leadership has been compromised at large. I doubt they will be compromised.
I did assume as I do a lot, but I see what you are saying now.
Ok, but this “bloodless coup” will theoretically be following the letter of the law.
The marines won’t, but pentagon leadership and the army, along with the NY and CA National guards may be enough.
Please. We will sit at home and cry. Or go wave signs in a street somewhere. And neither of those things will change anything.
Idk I seem to remember a lot of "cities burning" or something during some nationwide protests a few years ago after cops killed another person, I don't think those people have gone anywhere.
Yeah that was really amazing when they stopped police violence.
Rome wasn't built in a day as the saying goes. Because we make incremental progress shouldn't mean we stop fighting. Defeatism and apathy has never won anyone anything.
I'm just pointing out that police violence increased, not decreased, after #BLM.
Police violence has been an epidemic for decades, ask the nearest brown guy. What we're seeing now isn't necessarily the increase in violence itself, but a rise in reporting and accountability, people are becoming aware of it and how often it actually happens.
An increase in awareness doesn't mean you lost or that it's over.
Good luck rounding up the anti-fascist revolution in the nation neoliberalism built 👍
They didnt say it was a bloodless coup. They said if they get a Republican elected there will be sweeping changes, akin to another revolution. The statement about the left was a warning that the left might become violent if they try it.
And you're proving their point pushing for violence.
When one lies about what another has said in an attempt to basically call for violence, it's incredibly sus.
You're right, he didn't outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.
Everything you said after that is complete bullshit though
You’re right, he didn’t outright say it was a coup, he said it was the second revolution.
In refence to how they were going to reshape the executive after they win the election. Calling it a coup is just outright lying about what was said, as what they claim they are going to do will be perfectly legal. It's scary enough on it's own. Trying to paint it as if they are openly claiming they are going to steal the government is just dishonest. Why defend this, I have no idea.
This dum
And this will be the twist around, the sophistry applied to objections going forward. An accusation of violence where there is none. Granted, that’s the cluster B personality playbook: accuse others of what you yourself are doing. (See: DSM-V). And since MAGA republicans are embracing the cluster B playbook, the above is not surprising, but expected.
Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube. The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025. Context: discussing Supreme Court decision re presidential immunity paving the way to what is needed for the bloodless coup.
And this will be the twist around
It's funny being accused of twisting something around when I'm pointing out that the poster is lying about what was said, and implicitly making calls to violence over that lie.
Bloodless coup quote extracted from a far right YouTube.
Except the poster didn't say "I heard this on some far right youtube thing" but made a claim about what the head of the heritage foundation said.
The gentleman on display is the president of the heritage foundation, the heritage foundation is heavily involved in writing Project 2025.
And how does that make the lie the top level poster made about what he said any more true? I don't follow your logic here.