Trump's Coup d'état.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The crazies are here but might live next to me who will rat them out if I see any suspicious comings and goings at my crazy neighbors domicile. I would even do it for money!

That is very touching and I would be happy to pay you. But any amount of experience shows us that crazies do not look or act crazy. They may be weird but you cannot ipso facto identify those that are going to rent a van and drive it into pedestrians or make a fake police car and go around shooting people at random (to quote two recent Canadian examples). I hope the comments I see from Trumpists on right wing news sites are just talk. But there may be a tipping point and we maybe reaching it.

 

[gnome]

There's a word for that. It starts with a 'T', and ends, fittingly enough, with 'errorism'.

Even if they're not Muslim?

 

[Paul2]

They changed the rules!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/accurate-pollster-election-different-rule-changes

Even the supreme court said no changes should be made on election year because...what?
The constitution does not specify how states should run elections. If the legislature and governor appointed officials to run elections, well.

"each state chooses members of the Electoral College in a manner directed by each state's respective legislature, with the states granted electors equal to their combined representation in both houses of Congress."

But there is the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3), and that is what the SCOTUS has used to not accept changes *after* an election has been held.

I'm not aware that SCOTUS has forbidden any changes to how elections are held before the election and during the year of the election.

 

[dudalb]

I don't buy the idea of a civil war. There are no principles behind it. Or at least not principles that a large number of people are ready to fight for. There's a difference between the guy who votes for Trump and the guy who'll fight for Trump.

I was thinking more of armed resistence to a right wing dictatorship.
But then I am not, as my sig goes, a big fan of "we must be non violent no matter what the situation".

 

[gnome]

But there is the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3), and that is what the SCOTUS has used to not accept changes *after* an election has been held.

I'm not aware that SCOTUS has forbidden any changes to how elections are held before the election and during the year of the election.

The people holding out hope for a reversal of the Biden win have tried to argue in court that it is unconstitutional. It's just funny to see the same faction actually doing what they are calling foul on in court.

 

[Elagabalus]

That is very touching and I would be happy to pay you. But any amount of experience shows us that crazies do not look or act crazy. They may be weird but you cannot ipso facto identify those that are going to rent a van and drive it into pedestrians or make a fake police car and go around shooting people at random (to quote two recent Canadian examples). I hope the comments I see from Trumpists on right wing news sites are just talk. But there may be a tipping point and we maybe reaching it.

We have those guys here in the States too (Oklahoma City, Unibomber etc.).The point is that to be more than some rando with a car/IED these attacks will have to get more organized with people meeting up some place etc. and this activity will be noticed. There's also the issue of the people "fading into the woods" will be fighting against people who know the woods equally well and will tell the military where their adversaries are most likely located.

 

[acbytesla]

I was thinking more of armed resistence to a right wing dictatorship.
But then I am not, as my sig goes, a big fan of "we must be non violent no matter what the situation".

I'm not a fan of violence at all. But sometimes, it is necessary. That said, this isn't playing out all that well for Trump. Sure, he has the Proud Boys on his side but who else?

Trump doesn't look capable of pulling the nation's military and security forces behind his efforts to stay in power. He has been alienating allies or people he needs to be his allies. He vetoed the Military defense bill which includes pay raises for the military. He just pissed off the Republicans in Congress who worked endless hours on the COVID relief bill by now demanding 2,000 each. Is the DOJ, the FBI and the military really going to fall in line

I wonder about the big city police forces. Cops generally like Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Will there be tiki torches in DC on the 6th? It would be more festive.

I'm pretty sure there will be a well armed militia of doofuses. It will be telling if der leader Trump shows up to reward them with a wave from his limo or if Trump remains in exile in FL. If Trump believes he really might still be crowned king, he'll be here. But if he's finally conceded in his mind, he won't want to be in the WH just to see once again he has been rejected.

 

[varwoche]

"The votes are all getting stoled"

- Mike Lindell

 

[cosmicaug]

It looks like the GOP might finally be standing up to Trump. The $2000 thing may have been too much.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm pretty sure there will be a well armed militia of doofuses. It will be telling if der leader Trump shows up to reward them with a wave from his limo or if Trump remains in exile in FL. If Trump believes he really might still be crowned king, he'll be here. But if he's finally conceded in his mind, he won't want to be in the WH just to see once again he has been rejected.

Open carry is illegal in Washington, DC; and concealed carry requires a DC permit. Even with a permit, concealed carry is not allowed near certain Federal buildings like the Capitol and White House.

I don't expect Trump to be in town, but you never know with him.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trump doesn't look capable of pulling the nation's military and security forces behind his efforts to stay in power.

He's got nothing to offer except himself as President for four more years, which is enough for Trumptrash but of no interest to the military.

 

[Horatius]

The crazies are here but might live next to me who will rat them out if I see any suspicious comings and goings at my crazy neighbors domicile. I would even do it for money!

And while you're watching the crazies in order to rat them out, they're watching you and your libtard family, so don't be surprised if a few of them pay you a visit at 3AM. Because historically, that's what mobs of armed men do. Do you really think you know more about your neighbors than they know about you?

I don't buy the idea of a civil war. There are no principles behind it. Or at least not principles that a large number of people are ready to fight for. There's a difference between the guy who votes for Trump and the guy who'll fight for Trump.

But what counts as a "large number" in this case? If you want to win an election, it's something on the order of 80 million people. But you don't need that many if you're just looking to sow terror and confusion. Even 1% is 800,000 people, which is more than enough to **** some **** up. That's the worry. The small percentage of people who are both willing and able to engage in violence are more than sufficient to cause us huge problems. Even if you could identify and arrest a thousand of them every single day, that still means almost three years of sectarian violence to look forward to.

 

[Horatius]

Even 1% is 800,000 people, which is more than enough to **** some **** up. That's the worry. The small percentage of people who are both willing and able to engage in violence are more than sufficient to cause us huge problems. Even if you could identify and arrest a thousand of them every single day, that still means almost three years of sectarian violence to look forward to.

And to put that 800,000 number into context, even the high estimates of the number of people killed in the Iraq war are lower. And that was an actual war in which the US military almost certainly had much looser rules of engagement than they would have operating in the US itself.

 

[Elagabalus]

And while you're watching the crazies in order to rat them out, they're watching you and your libtard family, so don't be surprised if a few of them pay you a visit at 3AM. Because historically, that's what mobs of armed men do. Do you really think you know more about your neighbors than they know about you...?

Truthfully...? Eh ... well, I have to say that for the last three weeks, I've been in the trenches so to speak, over on the OAN comment section interacting with them and poking them with a stick and, yes, they DO seem to be about as dumb as a bag of hammers. YMMV.

 

[Thermal]

Why nukes. Better guns? Tanks? Aircraft? Ships? Drones? Again: any 2nd amendment-inspired "we will manage to put down tyrannical gov" is wankfantasy.

I will take aside that most of 2nd amendment loons will welcome tyrannical gov with open arms as long as it is correct type of tyrannical government.

So yeah, it is one big fat BS.

Tanks and aircraft and...ships...you say? You seem to be fantasizing about dogfights and naval battles with civilians. Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Google US v Vietcong for a quick primer.

That works same regardless of uncle having rock or gun.
Unlike power fantasies of 2nd amendment folks, reality is that either military shoots at civilians, or they refuse to do it. And refusal will be on moral grounds,

I think you are missing the angle where military does not have to shoot at all, if the civilians are unarmed. Just point and bark orders. Only if both sides are armed, the moral dilemma crops up.

...not because these civilians are armed with some peashooters.

Peashooters. You think Americans only have access to peashooters. You are just precious.

One guy cannot put down any coup (that can be reasonably called coup) either way.

*rubs temples*

 

[dirtywick]

I don't think you're giving the vietcong enough credit. they weren't as well equipped as the US but they were a real military force. the often overlooked part of the 2nd amendment is the well regulated part. although it really doesn't have any bearing on gun control debates, it's a critical part of the reasoning behind the existence of the amendment. no matter what else you got going on, you can't stop a tyrannical government if you're not organized.

 

[Horatius]

Truthfully...? Eh ... well, I have to say that for the last three weeks, I've been in the trenches so to speak, over on the OAN comment section interacting with them and poking them with a stick and, yes, they DO seem to be about as dumb as a bag of hammers. YMMV.

Basing your estimate of the danger of this movement on the subset of them stupid enough to be online loudmouths seems like a bad idea to me. It won't take a whole lot of them to cause problems on a scale no American has ever seen in their lives. I suspect there are a lot more quiet lurkers on those sites than you're accounting for, and it's those guys who will be shooting people.

 

[Mader Levap]

Tanks and aircraft and...ships...you say? You seem to be fantasizing about dogfights and naval battles with civilians.

Really? Looks like you are all over 2nd amendment and how civilians can carry guns and how it could prevent tyrannical gov...

...but fact that modern military does have way, way better toys than civilians ever could have for some reason does not count. Riiight.

Have you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Google US v Vietcong for a quick primer.

Vietnam won because it was too much hassle for USA to continue war, not because USA was incapable of military victory there. On home ground that won't be option.

I will take aside this comparison is weak, since attacking other country is something different than civil war.

I think you are missing the angle where military does not have to shoot at all, if the civilians are unarmed.

History shows that if situation escalates enough, there will be shooting at unarmed civilians (or at least order to do it). Did you slept under the rock last few decades? Did you not heard about various riots, civil wars and the like in various countries around the world?

History also teaches us such internal resistance movements can win on their own (without external help) only if local government is already very weak. Again, power wankfantasies of 2nd amendment folks are just that, fantasies. Get over it.

Just point and bark orders. Only if both sides are armed, the moral dilemma crops up.

Nonsense.

Peashooters. You think Americans only have access to peashooters. You are just precious.

I know in case of civil war they will be able to... acquire... some better weapons. It has nothing to do with 2nd amendment, however. Newflash: even in countries where civilians cannot have guns they do have them in case of civil war or something like that. I know, crazy.

 

[crescent]

But what counts as a "large number" in this case? If you want to win an election, it's something on the order of 80 million people. But you don't need that many if you're just looking to sow terror and confusion. Even 1% is 800,000 people, which is more than enough to **** some **** up. That's the worry. The small percentage of people who are both willing and able to engage in violence are more than sufficient to cause us huge problems. Even if you could identify and arrest a thousand of them every single day, that still means almost three years of sectarian violence to look forward to.

Indeed - that's the basis for the 3%'ers.

Three Percenters

They believe that only 3% of the American colonists actually actively supported the Revolution (at least at the beginning). The rest just came along once victory looked possible.

It's a great concept - it provides a moral justification for armed resistance against the government even when the great majority of the population does not support that. They think we'll come around eventually, and thank them for it.