Yes in fact every recognised previous coup involved armed military; this was a protest that went way too far. It probably was sedition, not sure about insurrection. There was a clear lack of attempt to take or declare power; which was in fact impossible, because how could Trump supporters take power from Trump. The worst of the offences at the Senate were vandalism and trespass.
4 Likes
1 Like
I think sedition is a lay-down mizzair, as the French might say…
Doesn’t it just need two or more people to delay/hinder the acts of govt etc etc??
1 Like
There are several coups that have resulted in the transfer of power that did not involve the military seizing power, merely staying in the barracks when the police did so. The recent transfer of power in Bolivia was arguably that. As a matter of happenstance, most do involve the military, but it is not a necessary condition.
2 Likes
I gotta say, when things were just kicking off last night and Trump’s Tweet about Pence came out, I was pretty nervous for the place.
For no. 1 to publicly break with no. 2 whilst thousands are storming towards the seat of government was a fucking dangerous situation imo.
1 Like
You should read the thread btw, they were convinced that they could stop the certification.
Edit, Pence is getting online abuse and death threats today. They call him Judas etc.
2 Likes
And returning to the central point, of yesterday, not a coup, or even attempt at.
Bearing in mind the Bolivian scenario, what might have transpired had they not managed to evacuate everyone and that lot had managed to corral everyone who was supposed to be there with no help shortly at hand?
No, it is hard quite to describe what it was - clearly disrupted the processes of government, and deliberately so, in order to halt a transition. But it stopped having done that, rather than continuing on to the next step, which is why when the news broke that Defence had refused the request for the National Guard I really started to wonder what the next step was. It turns out there doesn’t seem to have been one.
3 Likes
Trump has been attempting to cling to power despite losing the election for two months. You are getting hung on on the fact that there wasn’t an attempt to install a new president by violently overthrowing the incumbent. This isn’t important.
There is a democratic winner of the election and a democratic loser. The loser has been attempting to nullify the election and prevent the winner taking power, while retaining power for himself. He has done this with a flurry of baseless accusations, legal challenges and progressive more unhinged tweets.
Yesterday he, with premeditation, incited and encouraged hundreds of his followers to march on the Capitol Building and physically prevent the process of certifying Biden’s presidency.
Short of it being in one of those countries where we’re used to coups happening, I don’t know what more you want. The last two months have been absolutely an attempted coup.
2 Likes
I think thats right and the charges that will follow will be of sedition (at highest); wholly immaterial because I expect some serious examples to be made, especially of Buffalo Bill, and General Lee.
1 Like
John Brown was hanged for less.
3 Likes
I see it as two months of seeking to undermine the election result by legal claims and rhetoric - not incitement to insurrection; Yes Trump did incite the protest. But he didnt incite them into the Senate. Protest is legal.
Who knows what really happened in that mob yesterday. But who are the clear winners today?
Democrats and Biden, Trump is finished. So it was either one hell of a backfire, or something else.
Its not a coup mate, its embarrassing and disgraceful, but the indispensible condition was not even attempted. There has to be a declaration of taking power. Still then, such a declaration would have been impossible, because Trump supporters could not take power from Trump.
1 Like
That seems to me to be hairsplitting. The intent of the action was clear from about December 20, to the extent that social media groups were exchanging information on which tools were required to get past which doors into the Capitol Building.
In a very temporary sense, they took power away from Congress. There have been multiple coups where an existing executive branch overthrew the legislative branch in order to continue in power, Fujimori in 1992 for example.
2 Likes
No its factual. So where is Trump involved in this exchange of information to access the senate, more so, who instructed the police to wave them in?
Your second part is hairsplitting. Focus on the facts of yesterday.
Like claiming you won an election by a landslide that you decisively lost, continuing to declare yourself the winner, and claiming the winner cheated, lost, and is illegitimate?
No its probably seditious but not a coup.
Sure. The facts of yesterday are that a violent mob stormed the Capitol Building, stopping the proceedings of Congress in transferring power. The only reason it was not a coup is the very simple point that the next step never happened, and it does not now appear that it was ever planned to - I suspect for years people will be speculating what end game Trump had in mind, if any.
However, suggesting that a coup was a logical impossibility because Trump supporters could not take power from Trump is simply nonsense. Suggesting that because Trump was not involved because he himself was not spreading the word that the side doors would require a #2 Phillips screwdriver is equally nonsense. I am reasonably sure that Bonaparte was not involved in ever detail of the 18 Brumaire.
4 Likes
I think the US might possibly be more fucked than they realize.
3 Likes
Thanks, that’s a climb down under protest. But power was transferred yesterday, just later, so it was an interruption to the process of the Senate.
I just wonder exactly who incited the mob into the senate yesterday, because if it were Trump’s team, its a serious backfire. On the basis of who wins. Today, Biden and the Democrats, Trumpism is at the beginning of its end. Some stunt by Trump then.