• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"There are armed rioters storming the Capitol, now is time for me to tone police the exact wording because that's what's important and make 'What?' face when people think I have an ulterior motive."

*Makes jack off motion*
 
Regardless of how they look, they all have one thing in common. Those conducting the coup attempt to place their own government into place, usurping the legitimate Government's power.

Not a requirement of a coup, according to the definition that you provided.
 
Last edited:
I directly quoted you downplaying it. That you might not have done it in another post doesn’t change that.

In the same post you quoted that one you quoted me saying it was an insurrection. :rolleyes:

They do, actually. You even provided the definition as reference.

No, they don't. A coup might include those things, but those things do not make a coup or even an attempted one.

Oh right, because differing degrees of severity automatically make them two different things. :rolleyes:

Again you show your ignorance. Several of the coups in both Fiji and Thailand occurred with fewer deaths and less violence than occurred in DC today. It has nothing to do with severity, it has to do with the intent of the offenders. For a coup to happen, those committing it to need to be planning to overthrow the legitimate Government. Disrupting the Government to stop an election count is not overthrowing the Government in any way shape or form.
 
Not a requirement of a coup, according to the definition that you provided.

Seriously what? You are making less and less sense here.

How is "plac(ing) their own government into place, usurping the legitimate Government's power." not the same as "illegal seizure of power from a government"?

How else can you seize power from a government other than replacing that legitimate government with your own?
 
Last edited:
In the same post you quoted that one you quoted me saying it was an insurrection. :rolleyes:

Cool. You still downplayed it and I quoted you doing it.

No, they don't. A coup might include those things, but those things do not make a coup or even an attempted one.

You provided the definition and those things meet that definition.

Again you show your ignorance. Several of the coups in both Fiji and Thailand occurred with fewer deaths and less violence than occurred in DC today. It has nothing to do with severity, it has to do with the intent of the offenders. For a coup to happen, those committing it to need to be planning to overthrow the legitimate Government. Disrupting the Government to stop an election count is not overthrowing the Government in any way shape or form.

You contradict the definition that you provided. “Overthrowing the government” is not a requirement of a coup. Again, your definition.
 
Seriously what? You are making less and less sense here.

How is "plac(ing) their own government into place, usurping the legitimate Government's power." not the same as "illegal seizure of power from a government"?

How else can you seize power from a government other than replacing that legitimate government with your own?

By storming the Capitol and driving out the existing government, which is what happened.

There is nothing in either the definition of “coup” or “seize” that requires a replacement.
 
Ivanka Trump Tweeted:

American Patriots - any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable.
The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.


She then deleted the Tweet.

Didn't she also delete a tweet calling the rioters "beautiful people"?
 
people said:
Despite everything, doesn't a coup have to be successful in order to be a coup? You know, the same way someone has to actually die for a murder to be a murder, and otherwise it's just a murder attempt?

As for my two cents on terminology/pedantics - I suppose we have to wait for more details on their intentions before I can call it anything specific - if the intent was a terrorist act, coup attempt, or violent protest or show of force.

I've got little doubt it varies from person to person. Some no doubt showed up with an intent to bring down the government. Some might have been looking for political enemies to hurt. Some might be random protesters who showed up as the mob overran the barricades and then just went along for the ride. They certainly didn't act like a conquering army, more like tourists on a guided tour, or frat kids at a college party.

Then again, I suppose revolutionaries storming the palace in some banana replublic might act the exactly same way - posing on the throne, vandalizing offices, putting up their sides' banners and so on. So what do I know.
 
As there is ALWAYS a relevant Tweet:

Trump tweeted on the 27th July:

"Anarchists, Agitators or Protestors who vandalize or damage our Federal Courthouse in Portland, or any Federal Buildings in any of our Cities or States, will be prosecuted under our recently re-enacted Statues & Monuments Act. MINIMUM TEN YEARS IN PRISON. Don’t do it!"

What's the over/under on total TEN YEAR prison sentences handed out?
 
Despite everything, doesn't a coup have to be successful in order to be a coup? You know, the same way someone has to actually die for a murder to be a murder, and otherwise it's just a murder attempt?

It was successful. Right wing terrorists occupied the U.S. Capitol for several hours. Just because they didn’t hold onto it doesn’t change that fact, and is not a requirement to meet the definition of “coup”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom