• 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.
TragicMonkey said:
Okay, then, what would YOU call today's debacle? What convenient one-word term that would be easily recognizable to explain what this was would YOU employ?

If you want to be King Vocabulary you should be able to provide the goods. (Or wait until your maddened supporters storm the ISF and try to coup us, I guess!)
Click to expand...

Already answered.

An Insurrection
A Rebellion
A Terrorist Action
A Violent Uprising
An Ideological Based Attack

take your pick. I prefer the first one of these.
 
johnny karate said:
Your concession is noted.
Click to expand...

Not a concession at all, it was pointing out that your understanding is so poor that you can't even ask the right questions.

Whether or not the Government was able to conduct its business is entirely irrelevant to if it was a coup or not, in fact, many governments have continued to operate through coup attempts, so whether they can operate or not is irrelevant.

When the session is suspended then the government can't vote on things, that doesn't mean that the reason the session was suspended was a coup, and that is where your logic goes, that any reason for a suspension of congress = coup.

The question you need to be asking is:

"Did the right-wing insurrectionist terrorists have the power to certify the election results while they were in control of the Capitol?"
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Is there anything in the Constitution that says where the certification has to occur? In that particular building, or anywhere in the capital city? The Capitol is normally the most convenient place for them to do it, but is it required?
Click to expand...

Not in the Constitution. The Electoral Count Act says they meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives (3 USC 15). But Constitutionally, and even probably legally, they could do the count anywhere if they couldn't do it in the House chamber. They could do it at the House of Representatives Lawn & Garden Center.
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
Not in the Constitution. The Electoral Count Act says they meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives (3 USC 15). But Constitutionally, and even probably legally, they could do the count anywhere if they couldn't do it in the House chamber. They could do it at the House of Representatives Lawn & Garden Center.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it wouldn't be in the 12th Amendment, the Capitol building wasn't completed at that time.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I said translation.

(a) stroke of (or "at a") state (capital E in d'État)

I'll skip the jargon.

Transliteration comes out rebellion, insurrection, revolution, overturn, etc.

Again, for the same reasons we assign things like "ethnolinguistic groups" while also excepting they aren't really hard and fast, or this is the Roman Republic, while that is the Roman Empire, but nobody in Rome woke up aware of that distinction...

A coup is a an attack on the state. Maybe they possess existing offices in a charade that takes on legitimacy, maybe a new government form, maybe an interim commission to hold new elections, but those are all held as a different component of an overall "takeover/overthow/supplant" historical event.

Something could happen tomorrow that makes a 40 year look back on this moment a whole different word.

Why hammer it out in real-time?

:9
Click to expand...

It's weird that you argue with me and then seem to end up agreeing with me. The end result of a coup, as you just pointed out twice, is a new or changed Government where the coup members take power from the Government being taken over/overthrown/supplanted and give it to themselves or others that they deem as the new government or leadership, however temporary. If you can demonstrate any historical case of a coup occurring where the Government was overthrown and not replaced by those that overthrew it, then I'll concede the point that it's possible. Until then I don't see the point of objecting to the common definition found in pretty much every dictionary that a coup d'etat is an attack on the government in order to seize that government's power.

ETA: I'm pretty sure most Romans would have understood the difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Not a concession at all, it was pointing out that your understanding is so poor that you can't even ask the right questions.

Whether or not the Government was able to conduct its business is entirely irrelevant to if it was a coup or not, in fact, many governments have continued to operate through coup attempts, so whether they can operate or not is irrelevant.

When the session is suspended then the government can't vote on things, that doesn't mean that the reason the session was suspended was a coup, and that is where your logic goes, that any reason for a suspension of congress = coup.

The question you need to be asking is:

"Did the right-wing insurrectionist terrorists have the power to certify the election results while they were in control of the Capitol?"
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the definition of “coup” that says those carrying out the coup must assume and exercise government power.

It only says that they seize, or take it away, from the government.

When members of the government had to flee the Capitol or barricade themselves in their offices, they lost their power to carry out their duties.

And it was the right wing terrorists who sieged and occupied the Capitol that took it away.
 
angrysoba said:
A friend of mine is from St. Louis, and while he's not a bad guy, he tells me St. Louis is the murder capital of the United States. So, all I'm saying is that there may be competition. Hawley's probably still in the running though.
Click to expand...

East St Louis!

St. Louis is actually forth.

I feel pretty safe, though.
 
johnny karate said:
There is nothing in the definition of “coup” that says those carrying out the coup must assume and exercise government power.

It only says that they seize, or take it away, from the government.
When members of the government had to flee the Capitol or barricade themselves in their offices, they lost their power to carry out their duties.

And it was the right wing terrorists who sieged and occupied the Capitol that took it away.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Seize means not just to deny something, but to take it away from someone and into your own possession so you have it and they don't.

Unless the terrorists took the ability into their own possession and thus could have used it, then they did not remove it from Congress, instead, they prevented them from using the power, they didn't seize it.

Let me put this in a way you can understand.

If I seize your car, I get a truck and tow it away, taking it into my possession.

If instead I just slash your tires and dumping sugar in your gas tank, while I have denied you the ability to use your car, I haven't seized it. You still retain possession of it.
 
Last edited:
lol of course objecting to the use of casual use of words by using strict legal definitions of them in a casual conversation is needless
 
dirtywick said:
lol of course objecting to the use of casual use of words by using strict legal definitions of them in a casual conversation is needless
Click to expand...

Words have meanings, if you don't use them in the correct context then you cause confusion.

Would it be a good idea to talk about the tornado that devastated miles of Florida coastline? I mean after all Hurricane, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tornado... they are all cyclonic wind storms, what does it matter is we use them all interchangeably?
 
PhantomWolf said:
This is incorrect. Seize means not just to deny something, but to take it away from someone and into your own possession so you have it and they don't.

Unless the terrorists took the ability into their own possession and thus could have used it, then they did not remove it from Congress, instead, they prevented them from using the power, they didn't seize it.

Let me put this in a way you can understand.

If I seize your car, I get a truck and tow it away, taking it into my possession.

If instead I just slash your tires and dumping sugar in your gas tank, while I have denied you the ability to use your car, I haven't seized it. You still retain possession of it.
Click to expand...

If you seize my car, but don’t drive it or otherwise use it and merely prevent me from using it, you’ve still seized my car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom