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.
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
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I hate defending the heritage foundation, but my love for reality exceeds that hate.
Of course you don’t link to any of that. But, either way, I’m responding to the blatant lying about what they said right here.
If this is any indication of the way you “debate,” I wear that tag as a badge of honor. Thank you.
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.
https://imgur.com/gallery/S8zn4oo
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.
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.
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.
This dum